Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ACCOMMODATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 26 October at Seven o'clock.

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 June].

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 26 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Alcohol-related Crime

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on alcohol-related crime. [36504]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am considering the report by the all-party group on alcohol misuse. Although the majority of alcohol consumption is trouble free, for some individuals there is clearly an association between offending, especially violence, and heavy alcohol abuse.

Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware that, according to the British Medical Association, two in three homicides and three in four stabbings are associated with alcohol misuse? Will he take this opportunity to endorse the message from the all-party group that, while people should be able to enjoy a drink without causing trouble for others, greater governmental action is needed to tackle the scale of alcohol-related crime? Will he ensure that, in future, equal priority is given to tackling alcohol-related crime as is currently given to the battle against drugs and crime?

Mr. Maclean: Action is being taken. I am considering the hon. Gentleman's report but I am loth to try to single out one category of alcohol-related crime. We must tackle alcohol abuse—various Departments are doing so—and crime. Action is being taken on those two fronts and the police are reducing crime, including violence, for the first time in 50 years. The message on sensible drinking is getting through, and these days young people drink less than their parents and older generations. Spending on beer and spirits has fallen considerably in the past 15 years.

We shall keep up the action on all those fronts, including the education front. I commend to the hon. Gentleman a leaflet that I published when I was Minister responsible for food three years ago.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that police officers in Lichfield hold the view that much crime is caused by people leaving pubs all at the same time—at 11 o'clock on a Friday or Saturday night? Will his Department consider changing the licensing laws to allow staggered closing times so that some pubs could close after 11 pm and some before 11 pm?

Mr. Maclean: Those who stagger are less of a problem than those who do not. I commend to my hon. Friend or any police force concerned about that problem some of the research that has been carried out by the police research group in my Department, and some of the excellent experiments in the country. In Rhyl, the police, together with the licensing magistrate and the local authority, took on the problem and, by using their existing powers to stagger closing hours and deal with fast-food outlets on the highway, drastically reduced the level of incidents outside pubs and nightclubs. The evidence exists and it can be copied throughout the country without the need for primary legislation.

Teenage Prisoners

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of time teenagers were kept in adult prisons whilst awaiting court cases in the last year for which figures are available. [36505]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The average time spent in custody on remand in Prison Service establishments by defendants aged 15 to 19 who were awaiting trial was 44 days in 1994.

Mr. Gunnell: Is not seven weeks in an adult prison likely to have a detrimental effect on youngsters and teenagers who have not been tried? Is it not a scandal that we are proceeding so slowly on getting additional facilities? Is the Minister aware that in 1991 when I was chair of social services in Leeds, we agreed additional facilities—an extra nine places—which were to go ahead at some time, but that five years later that still has not happened and we are still waiting? Why has there been so little progress?

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned that young people should not be held in adult prisons, why did he vote against the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which provided more local authority—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was not here in 1991."] Let me rephrase my question. Why did the hon. Gentleman vote against the 1994 Act and his party vote against the 1991 Act? If he does not want young people to be held in adult prisons, why did he vote against the provision of more secure places in local authority accommodation?

Mr. Brazier: Was not the real scandal the level of offending on bail? Although we want to provide as many alternative secure places as possible, the Government


were absolutely right to tighten bail conditions because that will ensure that, in future, youngsters on bail will commit fewer offences.

Miss Widdecombe: Absolutely. It is also true of course that the Opposition voted against all our improvements to bail arrangements as well. I do not think that they have any grounds for castigating us on that subject.

Mr. Michael: May I remind the Minister that we would not have had the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 were it not for the efforts of members of the Opposition Front Bench and the votes of the Opposition? Have Ministers forgotten that it is five years since the Government promised to end the scandal of young people of 15 and 16 years of age being held either in inappropriate adult prison accommodation or in secure local government accommodation? Will the Home Secretary now explain the Government's failure to keep that promise, or will he blame someone else?

Miss Widdecombe: We can justly blame the Opposition for all the difficulties that they gave us. We can justly say that we have plans for a new-build programme not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We have introduced measures to try to reduce the number of young people being held in adult prisons. As usual, the Opposition will not welcome any of that because they always want to hear bad news and they will never give credit where it is due. They simply will not accept what we have done.

Intergovernmental Conference

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government will seek at the 1996 intergovernmental conference to have the declaration on border controls in the Single Act changed to be a treaty clause; and if he will make a statement. [36506]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made clear that we will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain our frontier controls. We see no need to decide now to take action at the intergovernmental conference, but if at any stage we think that a desirable course to take, we shall not hesitate to do so.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As a senior Commission official has stated that the declaration was added simply because the British needed something to take home with them, and as I cannot find anyone outside the Government who thinks that it has any legal standing, will the Home Secretary state clearly what the position of Her Majesty's Government would be if the European Court determined that our remaining border controls within the European Union were contrary to article 7A?

Mr. Howard: I repeat to my hon. Friend what I said a moment ago: the Government will take whatever steps necessary to maintain our frontier controls. That applies as much in the hypothetical circumstance referred to by my hon. Friend as to any other circumstances that might arise.

Dr. Howells: Despite the Secretary of State's reply to the question by his hon. Friend the Member for Southend,

East (Sir T. Taylor)—I am not sure what on earth it meant—is it not a fact that when he and the rest of the Tory Government signed up to what is now article 7A of the treaty of Rome of 1986, they opted hook, line and sinker for a regime that means that we will be forced to give up our ability to control our frontiers? We will have to give up the means to combat drug runners, international criminals and the gangsters who control illegal immigration. Other than continue to display governmental indolence, what will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to ensure that we continue to maintain our frontier controls as we should?

Mr. Howard: The short answer is, no that is not true. I am not aware that, at the time, the Labour party was opposed to that particular article. I do not recall that the Opposition expressed any concern about it. The hon. Gentleman's hypothesis is quite untrue. We will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain our frontier controls.

Mr. Gallie: Is it not the case that, in stating that the Government would do whatever is necessary, the Government committed themselves to ensuring that those border controls remain? Is it not also the case that the words from Opposition Members are totally out of standing, especially when they would commit to virtually every European policy that is thrust upon us?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. It may well be necessary, if we are to maintain our frontier controls, for us to be isolated in Europe, but that is the thing that the Labour party has said that it never would be. Labour Members never would be isolated in Europe. They never will exercise the veto. They will never stand up to defend our frontier controls. Only Conservative Members would be prepared to take the action that may be necessary to achieve that.

Probation Service, West Yorkshire

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to visit the West Yorkshire probation service to discuss probation services; and if he will make a statement. [36507]

Mr. Howard: My noble Friend the Minister of State visited West Yorkshire probation service on 19 May. I have no immediate plans to visit the West Yorkshire service myself.

Mr. O'Brien: Has the Home Secretary seen the performance report of the West Yorkshire probation service for the past year? That report reveals a 16 per cent. increase in demand from courts—a 16 per cent. increase in the work of the probation service. The reward from the Home Secretary for that this year is a 4.5 per cent. cut in its cash limits. Will he give me an assurance and a guarantee that, so that the West Yorkshire community may receive the service to which it is entitled from the probation service, there will be no cuts in the coming year, so that the services can be guaranteed?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman takes a slightly broader look at funding for the probation service in recent years, he will find that the picture is quite different. Specifically, if he considers the period between 1990 and 1994, he will notice a substantial increase in resources. It is no use the shadow Chancellor popping up on every


radio station and saying that the Labour party will be rigorous on public spending if Labour Back Benchers repeatedly pop up in the House and ask for more money to be spent in every category in the public expenditure survey.

Raghbir Singh Johal

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal. [36508]

Mr. Howard: I am satisfied that Raghbir Singh Johal's deportation would be conducive to the public good for reasons of national security and would contribute to the fight against international terrorism. No action will be taken to remove him from the United Kingdom until the representations that he has made have been considered.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that my constituent, a lawful resident in Britain for many years, strenuously denies any involvement with terrorism? If there is any evidence relating to terrorism, why is my constituent not being charged, but has instead been held in prison since March on no charge whatsoever? Is his to be another case like that of the Sikh who has been held in prison for five years and who is bringing his case before the European Court? No charges have been made against that person either.

Mr. Howard: Because the exercise of the powers that I have referred to require me to take into account material that includes material which would not be admissible in a court of law. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the law should be changed so that that material could not be taken into account in such circumstances, perhaps he would say so.

Casinos

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the 48-hour rule for casinos. [36511]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): We have received representations from the casino industry and a number of hon. Members. We are currently reviewing the present controls on casinos as part of the Government's deregulation initiative.

Mr. Coombs: May I be the first to welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and to wish him every success in his new post? He will be well aware of the fact that the British casino industry is a substantial earner of foreign income for the country, but is subject to regulation that is outdated and outmoded. It would be very much in the country's interests if he were able to announce very soon the end of the Government's consultation period on the basis of the consultations that they have already had, and make proposals for the deregulation of that important industry.

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I commend him for the work that he does on behalf of the tourism industry in the United Kingdom and in his constituency. We are very close to reaching conclusions, having received representations. We are looking not only at the 48-hour rule for casinos, but at the

issue of the permitted areas where they may operate. I hope that when we come to our conclusions we will balance the needs of deregulation with the needs for continued protection for the public, about which I know many hon. Members are also concerned.

Mr. George Howarth: I also welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities.
There is considerable concern among groups such as the bingo industry, the pools industry and betting shops about the unfair competition that they have experienced as a result of the introduction of the national lottery. We are prepared to hold talks with the Minister and any of his ministerial colleagues to look at ways in which those anomalies can be put right so that the industries and, more importantly, the jobs that depend on them, exist on a level playing field and face fair, not unfair, competition.

Mr. Kirkhope: We are well aware of that and have already made some progress in deregulation. If it helps the hon. Gentleman I can say that I am certainly willing, as always, to meet any delegations on that basis. Our considerations at present include not only casinos, but bingo and bingo halls.

Mr. Robert Banks: I also welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and much appreciate what he has just said. Does he agree that towns, particularly conference towns such as Harrogate in my constituency, which he knows well, should be able to qualify for casino licences to save business visitors the necessity of travelling to Leeds for their entertainment?

Mr. Kirkhope: As the Member for Leeds, North-East, I have a slightly mixed view. My hon. Friend is right; our considerations, as I said before, include permitted areas. We shall certainly look at representations from towns such as Harrogate and, of course, Swindon.

Police Advisory Committee for London

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which dates the police advisory committee for London has met since 1 January; and if he will place a copy of its minutes of proceedings in the Library. [36512]

Mr. Howard: The Metropolitan Police Committee met on 27 February, 21 March, 25 April, 25 May, 22 June, 19 July, 21 September and 6 October. Its sub-committees, on remuneration matters and performance indicators, have met separately on several occasions.
The duty of the Metropolitan Police Committee is to advise Ministers on policy and the minutes of its meetings are therefore confidential. I expect the chairman to produce an annual report and I shall place a copy of that in the Library in due course.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the Home Secretary think that non-publication of minutes is a hierarchical and undemocratic practice? Will he confirm that the principal duties that he has asked the Committee to perform relating to budgets and finance reflect the wrong attitude to public service, both in terms of the Government as a whole and his own particular style? Is not that specific quango,


which probably spends between £300,000 and £400,000 a year, an affront to the citizens of London, whatever their political view?

Mr. Howard: The answers to the three questions posed by the hon. Gentleman are no, no and no.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the police advisory committee for London will have as much chance of success as the borough police consultative committees currently have, including wide representations in boroughs? Does my right hon. and learned Friend remember that the Labour party bitterly opposed the establishment of the borough consultative committees, particularly in Ealing and Hackney, and refused to serve on them for many years?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is a part of the Labour party's record that it would prefer to forget, but many of us remember it. I am confident that the Metropolitan Police Committee will play an important part in improving the way in which policing in London can involve the community.

Private Security Industry

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce statutory regulation of the private security industry. [36513]

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce statutory regulation of the private security industry. [36514]

Mr. Maclean: The case for regulation is currently being considered. The Home Affairs Select Committee report on that issue made a number of very helpful recommendations and we shall respond to it as soon as possible.

Mr. Bennett: Given that the respectable part of the industry is keen to have proper regulation and given that it is now more than four months since the Home Affairs Select Committee gave its report and the Government are supposed to reply after two months, is it not high time that there were some proposals for proper regulation or is the Deputy Prime Minister vetoing that?

Mr. Maclean: The private security industry has grown up in the past 20 or 25 years and the bulk of the industry works perfectly well without any need for regulation. The Home Affairs Select Committee identified one sector with potential problems. In view of the time span of the growth of the industry, I think that it is quite legitimate for the Government to take the time that they have since the Home Affairs Select Committee reported to consider the matters carefully before rushing into implementing any proposals. Of course, we shall want to respond to the Select Committee as soon as we can and we shall want to give a detailed and considered reply to the main points in its recommendations.

Mr. Tony Banks: We all know that the Government have no standards whatsoever as to their normal conduct, but what about people's concerns about low wages, no regulation and no guarantee of public safety in the private security industry? Does the Minister rule out entirely any form of regulation in that industry?

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman were to read my evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, he would know the answer to that question. We are considering carefully all options for that sector.
As to the hon. Gentleman's jibe about standards, if he wants to root out criminals and fraudsters, perhaps he should go to Hackney council and sort out the corruption in its housing department. Perhaps he could then pop into Labour-controlled Islington, with its crazy policy of employing paedophiles, pimps and perverts to work with children.

Sir Peter Fry: There is concern about the issue on Conservative Benches as well as on Opposition Benches. I know of many examples of people having to work ridiculously long hours for exceedingly low pay, which raises many questions about how secure the security companies really are. When the Minister replies to the Select Committee's report, I hope that he will put forward some concrete proposals to strengthen the position and to drive the cowboys out of that very important industry.

Mr. Maclean: As someone who used to undertake such work 15 or 20 years ago, I am of course aware that part of the security industry is low paid. However, I think that my hon. Friend would be the first to acknowledge that self-regulation works perfectly well in the bulk of the security industry—particularly on the technological and electronic alarm sides. The Home Affairs Select Committee identified only one sector where there was a potential problem. Nevertheless, that sector deserves careful consideration and we are considering it at the moment.

Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that security companies face in trying to employ people without criminal records? Will he ensure that that issue is examined so that the security companies may be certain that their employees do not have criminal records?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to draw my attention to that aspect of the policy. In considering the Home Affairs Select Committee report, we must examine whether changes to the present rules for vetting potential employees are necessary. That requires careful consideration of the impact of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and we are looking at whether it will be possible to gather more information about prospective employees in order to prevent the employment of people with criminal records, without undermining the principles of the Act.

Mr. Beith: Until we have a proper system of regulation that will stop criminals moving into the industry—as some have done already—will the Minister give an assurance that neither the Home Office nor any of its agencies employ any security firms that do not belong to the industry's self-regulating organisation? But perhaps that is an operational detail of the kind that the Minister does not like to be involved in.

Mr. Maclean: No. It would be contrary to European regulations to exclude companies automatically on the basis that they do not belong to a trade organisation. Government Departments operate a quality threshold policy and if any company meets the quality standards of a contract, that company can be given the business, irrespective of whether it belongs to a trade union or a trade association.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware, not least from the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for


Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), of the mounting concern that, in many parts of the country, the private security industry does indeed employ criminals, who are organised into companies to continue their criminal activities under the guise of providing private security? Is he aware that the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that there was a growing problem of totally unregistered private locally patrolling operations, often preying on the fears of vulnerable people? Given the intense concern on both sides of the House, does the Minister accept that he really should show much more than the complacency that he has demonstrated to the House today and move swiftly ahead with the proper regulation of that sector of the industry?

Mr. Maclean: We all know that when the Opposition study an opinion poll and find that people dislike noisy neighbours, they rush into promises of draconian legislation to deal with that week's problem. The private security industry is very important. It is also a large industry which is important to Britain's export needs. The first point to acknowledge is that the bulk of the industry has been given a clean bill of health. The fact that the Home Office and the Home Affairs Select Committee have been reviewing it means that we take the potential problem very seriously. When we have reached our conclusions, we shall announce them in due course.

Fire Service, Wales

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with local authorities concerning proposals for the reorganisation of the fire service in Wales. [36516]

Mr. Kirkhope: My right hon. and noble Friend met a deputation from the Assembly of Welsh Counties on 22 August. In the light of the recently completed consultation process on the proposed combined fire authorities, the Government have decided, after careful consideration, to introduce a three-brigade structure for the fire service in Wales from next April.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that the local authorities now consider that the original consultation process was flawed because of inaccurate information? They are now calling for further meetings with Lady B latch to consider a proposal for a voluntary combination of the five new unitary authorities in Gwent to run the Gwent fire brigade which, incidentally, has the best response rate in the whole of the United Kingdom. Could we please now have some help and co-operation from the Government?

Mr. Kirkhope: An extremely thorough consultation took place. Indeed, the proposals to move to three brigades were first put forward as long ago as March 1993, since when there have been many more contributions to consultation. I do not think that anything substantive has occurred since we concluded the consultation process. Certainly I am always willing to talk to the hon. Gentleman about any matter, including this, but the announcement has been made with good evidence that it will improve the efficiency and good running of the service in Wales for the benefit of the Welsh people.

Carl Bridgewater Murder Case

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make an announcement about a referral of the case of the men convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater back to the Court of Appeal. [36517]

Mr. Kirkhope: We expect to complete our consideration of this case very soon.

Dr. Jones: That is good news as far as it goes. Three men have been in prison for 18 years for a crime that they did not commit and one man has died in gaol. Even the foreman of the jury says that they are innocent. It has been two and a half years since new evidence has been presented to the Home Office and I am glad that, at long last, a decision may be taken soon. Two and a half years is a long time. I know that the Home Secretary has had a lot on his mind, but if he had paid more attention to miscarriages of justice instead of interfering in the day-to-day running of prisons, perhaps he would not be in the mess he is in today.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am afraid that the hon. Lady seems to misunderstand the process of justice in Britain. We have had the matter examined extremely thoroughly. Although it has taken a long time, that is very important because of the matters that have been raised by many people. They have been considered most carefully. We want to see that justice is properly done and, as I said to the hon. Lady, we expect to complete the consideration and make an announcement very soon.

Asylum Seekers

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the number of asylum seekers. [36518]

Miss Widdecombe: The number of asylum applications in the United Kingdom rose from 22,400 in 1993 to 32,800 in 1994—an increase of 45 per cent. The figures are continuing to rise sharply and are expected to exceed 40,000 in 1995. Few applicants are genuine refugees. It is clear that further action is needed to strengthen our defences against exploitation of our asylum system. A statement about that will be made shortly.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that many so-called asylum seekers regard this country as a soft touch? Is it not the case that 80 per cent. of people who apply for asylum in this country eventually have to return home? Is not it the case also that some people who apply for asylum are illegal immigrants facing deportation from this country? Does not the whole country—with the exception of Opposition Front Benchers—welcome the Government's determination to clamp down on bogus asylum seekers, so that genuine cases can be dealt with much more quickly?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Only 5 per cent. of appeals against our refusals are upheld. Asylum is often used as a last resort by people who have exhausted every other possible method, including illegal entry. We are tired of being taken for a ride, and it is undeniably true that, genuine applicants suffer from the activities of applicants who are not genuine. It is our firm intention to curtail their activities.

Race Relations

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about race relations in the United Kingdom. [36519]

Mr. Howard: I believe that the United Kingdom can be proud of its record on race relations, which is significantly better than that in most comparable countries. Of course there is always room for improvement, and the Government will continue their policy of promoting good race relations combined with firm but fair immigration control.

Mr. Bayley: Does the Home Secretary agree that it was most damaging to race relations when the chairman of the Conservative party used the televised platform of the Conservative party conference to pour scorn on the work of the Hopscotch Asian women's project in Camden? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman urge the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) to apologise to the Princess Royal, who has just visited that project because it is funded by the Save the Children Fund? Will he also apologise to his own Department, which last year gave the Hopscotch project a grant?

Mr. Howard: No, I will not do any of those things. I am happy to say that I am in frequent communication with my right hon. Friend and I know that he takes the cause of promoting good race relations as seriously as any Member of the House.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that good race relations depends to a great extent on firm immigration control? He is to be congratulated on his attitude to border controls. It is believed that, since 1984, a quarter of a million Sikhs have sought asylum in Germany. If there were not good border controls, there would be a strong chance that those Sikhs would join their many relatives in places such as Wolverhampton.

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of firm but fair immigration control, particularly in the context of the need to maintain our present system of frontier controls.

Violent Crime

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise Government policy on punishment for criminals who kill in the course of committing a crime. [36520]

Mr. Maclean: There are no plans to review existing policy.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of my constituents on the pledge given by the Home Secretary last week at the Conservative party conference that second offenders in violent crime will in future probably receive a life sentence? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that persons who commit violent acts or murder while committing a crime should receive the death penalty?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend knows my personal views on capital punishment. We probably differ only at the drawing and quartering stage. She knows also, however, that it is not a matter for Government determination; capital punishment is one for the will of

the House. The House has made its intentions clear over the years and the Government have no intention of attempting to change that policy.

Fire Authorities

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the reduction in services that fire authorities have to make as a result of expenditure shortfalls. [36521]

Mr. Kirkhope: Representations about the level of financial provision available to fire authorities have been received from a number of hon. Members and others. My right hon. and learned Friend's approval is required under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 before any reduction in the number of fire stations, fire appliances or firefighting posts in a brigade can be made, and is given only when he is satisfied that the normally recommended minimum levels of fire cover will be maintained. I understand that the West Midlands fire and civil defence authority is meeting all its statutory obligations.

Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that the West Midlands fire brigade pension fund is about £7 million in deficit? Does he realise that that could result in further cuts in the service? What does he propose to do?

Mr. Kirkhope: Those matters are mostly the concern of the fire authorities. The hon. Gentleman, however, and the people of his area have a safeguard because we shall not allow the standards of fire protection to fall. The service provided by the fire authorities will be protected for ordinary people. I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in asking firemen on Merseyside to settle their dispute and return to work. Firemen who are on strike in that manner harm fire protection, as opposed to what the Government are doing.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the ways in which fire services are budgeted? Is it not illogical that the expenditure side is determined on risk analysis whereas the revenue side is determined on the previous three years' call-out rate?

Mr. Kirkhope: There are illogicalities, and I shall be happy to consider the matter that my hon. Friend has raised. I am satisfied, however, that the financing of fire authorities is satisfactory and adequate for the majority of them to meet the needs that they have above and beyond the need of fire protection.

Criminal Neighbours

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about procedures to deal with criminal neighbours. [36522]

Mr. Maclean: The investigation of criminal offences is an operational matter for chief officers of police. The Government encourage the police to work in partnership with local authorities and other organisations to tackle crime and prevent nuisance.

Mr. Mudie: The Minister will be aware of the great inconvenience that is caused to people who have anti-social neighbours. Is it good enough for the Minister to offer the same old excuse about operational matters?


When can we expect him to deliver some policies to help these individuals who are experiencing such trouble with anti-social neighbours?

Mr. Maclean: Serious anti-social behaviour such as racial harassment, witness intimidation, threatening behaviour and assault are already the subject of criminal offences. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced new provisions to deal with witness intimidation and intentional harassment. Those were provisions that the Labour party thought about carefully before deciding to abstain. We have introduced policies and the Opposition have abstained.

Violent Crime

Mr. Hoon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to tackle violent crime. [36523]

Ms Jowell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he intends to take to tackle violent crime. [36524]

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend announced last week our proposals for ensuring that the sentence served in prison should be the sentence passed by the court and that there should be a new mandatory life sentence for repetition of serious offences of sex or violence.

Mr. Hoon: If the Home Secretary truly believes in the need to abolish automatic remission, why did he and all his colleagues vote for the introduction of that system during consideration of what became the Criminal Justice Act 1991? Is he unable to make up his mind or is this another example of the Conservative party lurching to the right to appease reactionary representatives at the Tory party conference?

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to study the 1991 Act and what had gone before, he would have found that that legislation led to a tightening of the rules. It is clear that he and his party have not thought through the sentencing policies that the people want. Perhaps that is why we are seeing a sideshow this afternoon.

Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an affront to the public when violent criminals then profit from their crime by selling their story to film makers and publishers? Will he look again at my proposed amendment to criminal justice legislation to make it illegal for anyone to pay a criminal for his story?

Mr. Maclean: Of course it is reprehensible for people to profit from those activities, but, as I have said to my hon. Friend, rather than create a new offence or invoke criminal law, I would much prefer to see responsibility by those who are exercising the cheque book, in whatever media outlets they may be in, so that they do not pay criminals for the details of their sordid crimes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Lichfield (Anniversaries)

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to visit the celebrations of the 800th anniversary

of the completion of the present cathedral and the 500th anniversary of the King Edward VI school being held this year in the city of Lichfield. [36532]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I warmly congratulate the citizens of Lichfield on these anniversaries. Unfortunately, I shall not on this occasion be able to visit during them.

Mr. Fabricant: If my right hon. Friend is able to visit next year, not only could he join in the celebrations of the 801st anniversary of the cathedral but he could see our brand new anti-crime closed circuit television system in the centre of Lichfield and use the opportunity to speak to the people of the city of Lichfield, who will tell him that what we need is not do-gooders but more people like our Home Secretary, who are tough on crime and robust on punishment.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary richly deserves and gets my full support in his fight against crime. It is a fight in which he has engaged with great success without a great deal of support from Opposition Members.
Closed circuit television has had a dramatic effect in catching criminals and deterring crime, and over the next three years we anticipate installing a further 10,000 new cameras up and down the country.

Engagements

Mr. Clapham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October. [36533]

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Clapham: Despite the Government's obsession with privatisation over the past 16 years, will the Prime Minister share the view of Dame Vera Lynn, the people of Dover and the Labour party and ensure that Dover and its white cliffs remain British for ever?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case and, as we look at plans ahead, I shall certainly bear it in mind.

Mr. French: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the official solicitor is reported to have done a deal whereby the so-called memoirs of my late constituent, Mr. Fred West, are to be sold for £1 million? Does my right hon. Friend not find such a deal extremely distasteful? But, if it is to go ahead, does he agree that that sum should go not to members of the West family but to the families of the alleged victims?

The Prime Minister: When I saw some of the earlier reports on this matter in the media, there was an implication that the Government were involved in the sale of the rights to Mr. West's papers. That is, of course, emphatically not the case. The official solicitor who has made the sale is a lawyer independent of Government and he has made that decision on his judgment of what is right for the estate. Personally, I share my hon. Friend's feelings about this matter.

Mr. Blair: Can we have clear answers now to the two points of fact at the heart of the dispute between the Home


Secretary and Mr. Lewis? At the meeting of 10 January, first, did the Home Secretary say that the governor of Parkhurst prison should be suspended—a disciplinary matter—rather than merely transferred to other duties, and, secondly, was it the Home Secretary, not Mr. Lewis, who demanded that any action taken be taken that day immediately so that he could announce it to the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend will deal with these matters in detail this afternoon. But let me say further to the right hon. Gentleman that the leading questions that he put to me on Tuesday in an attempt to discredit my right hon. and learned Friend were wrong. I have now had the documentary evidence examined which shows conclusively that the decision to move the governor of Parkhurst prison was the director general's. My right hon. and learned Friend will be releasing that evidence later today. I hope, therefore, that before the Leader of the Opposition repeats unjust allegations, before he states new unjust allegations, he will withdraw the old unjust allegations and apologise for them. [Interruption.]

Dr. Spink: The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his false questions.

Madam Speaker: Order. Dr. Spink will come to order.

Mr. Blair: We certainly do not withdraw those allegations and we shall make them good during the debate. What is more, I note that the Prime Minister did not answer either of the two points that I put to him. Let me make this clear to Conservative Members. This is not just Mr. Lewis's word against that of the Home Secretary, although let me point out that he was the senior civil servant. The Government appointed Mr. Lewis and renewed his contract. May I tell the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time and we are to have a debate on the matter in a short time.

Mr. Blair: May I remind the Prime Minister that those now lined up against the Home Secretary on this issue are the chairman of the board of visitors of Parkhurst, the chairman of the Association of Members of Boards of Visitors, the chief inspector of prisons—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time and I insist that questions are put to the Prime Minister for reply.

Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister now release Philippa Drew, John Marriott and other civil servants connected with this matter from their obligations of confidentiality on this limited issue so that they can give their version of events and we can see who is telling the truth?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is very reckless with his facts and very fancy-free with his allegations. He was wrong on Tuesday and the House will notice that he did not apologise for his error. My right hon. and learned Friend will deal with all these matters this afternoon and I have every confidence that he will reveal Labour's smears for what they are. I have one further point for the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is keen to lecture people on moral

responsibility. Perhaps he should reflect that a high moral tone is inconsistent with peddling allegations that he knows are untrue.

Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister says that they are untrue, will he allow those civil servants who know the truth directly to give evidence as to their version of events? Now, yes or no to that question?

The Prime Minister: I made the point in my first answer that my right hon. and learned Friend will be releasing the evidence this afternoon about the decision on Parkhurst prison. As to the other matters, my right hon. and learned Friend will make the matter crystal clear this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to retain any credibility in the country, he should acknowledge that he is wrong and apologise for unjust allegations.

Mr. Waterson: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity during his busy week to consider the findings of the European Court, which has said that positive discrimination in employment is unlawful? Will he confirm that the full facilities of the Equal Opportunities Commission will be made available for the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an extremely intriguing point, and also touches on elections elsewhere that have been of interest to the House in the past day or so. I have no doubt that the departure of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the arrival of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) constitute a case of constructive dismissal and destructive appointment.

Mr. Ashdown: With the Home Secretary now facing his eighth appearance before the courts, how does the Prime Minister justify a policy of "two strikes and you're out" for a criminal? The Home Secretary has had seven strikes against him, and he is still in.

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to understand that there is strong support in the country for the law and order policies of my right hon. and learned Friend. Time after time, my right hon. and learned Friend and his predecessors have set out strong anti-criminal measures; time after time, the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition have voted for the soft option. They voted against raising the maximum sentences for serious crimes: they are against that. They were against giving the Attorney-General the right of appeal against lenient sentences: they want lenient sentences. They were against strengthening police powers to stop and search criminals, against giving the police more powers to deal with disorder on the streets and against making parents more responsible for their children. They do not like it, but that is their record on crime. The only message that the Liberal and Labour parties send to criminals is that they would be soft on them.

Mr. Wilshire: Turning to Northern Ireland, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that it remains the Government's policy to exclude from all-party talks all those who retain guns and explosives?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that there has been absolutely no change in the Government's position. That


will be clear to anyone who studies the full text of the remarks made the other day by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October. [36534]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Prime Minister recall the occasion on which a man was found in the Queen's bedroom? Does he also recall—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We have a very full day today. Come on, get on with it.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Prime Minister also recall that the then Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw—who I think we can all agree was a gentleman of the old school—immediately offered his resignation? Was Lord Whitelaw wrong? Should he have said that it was an operational matter, and none of his business?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman were familiar with the framework document under which Mr. Lewis was working, he would see the clear distinction between policy and operational matters.

Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October. [36535]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grant-maintained schools are proving more and more popular with parents—so much so that a school in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition is now balloting for grant-maintained status?

The Prime Minister: I did not know that, but I congratulate the parents of Sedgefield on considering it,

and I very much hope that they will vote in favour. I hope that, if they do, the Labour leader will have the chance to tell his constituents about the benefits of grant-maintained schools, which he so obviously values. When he does so, perhaps he can explain why Labour's education policy is to enjoy those advantages—quite rightly—for its own children, but to deprive other people's children of the same opportunity.

Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 October. [36536]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Miss Hoey: Does the Prime Minister share my concern at the failure of training and enterprise councils across the country to meet their targets for special needs? Does he realise that, in the meantime, projects such as Roots and Shoots in Kennington in my constituency are facing closure from underfunding, despite having a wonderful success rate in terms of employment? What action will he take on that?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of the detailed question that she proposed to ask. I understand that she had a useful meeting this morning with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). I understand that Roots and Shoots has signed a contract with the Central London TEC. My hon. Friend has made it clear that the TEC is willing to discuss the terms of the contract and the costs involved by Roots and Shoots in an effort to ensure that provision is continued. As I am sure the hon. Lady is also aware, my hon. Friend has written to every TEC to urge it to pass on the substantial premium that the Government pay to special needs training. My hon. Friend will of course pursue that vigorously.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion to take note of EC documents Nos. 7596/95, 7465/95 and 8817/95 relating to the common fisheries policy control system. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 24 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (19th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Current Environmental Concerns in Scotland" on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party. Followed by a debate entitled "The Plight of Pensioners in Wales" on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru.
WEDNESDAY 25 OCTOBER—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (20th allotted day). There will be a debate on the national lottery on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 26 OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords].
Motion on an order relating to the salaries of Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Whips in each House, and the Officers of both Houses.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
FRIDAY 27 OCTOBER—Debate on sport on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 30 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments which may be received to the Disability Discrimination Bill.
Remaining stages of the Law Reform (Succession) Bill [Lords], the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [Lords] and the Civil Evidence Bill [Lords].
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet as follows:
Tuesday 24 October at 10.30 am: EC document No. 6591/94 relating to comparative advertising.
Wednesday 25 October at 10.30 am: EC document No. 6871/95 and the supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of National Heritage on 5 July 1995 relating to tourism.
I am sorry that at present I am not able to be as forthcoming as I would normally wish about business after Monday 30 October, but I think hon. Members will understand some of the difficulties at this time of year. I should tell them—it would certainly be for the convenience of the House—that Government business will be taken in the week beginning 30 October and will also be taken in the week beginning 6 November for some time in that week, subject to the progress of business in another place.

[Monday 23 October—European Community documents: (a) 7465/95, Fisheries enforcement: financial provision; (b) 7596/95, Common fisheries policy control

system; (c) 8817/95, Fisheries: log book records. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (a) HC 70-xxi ( 1994–95); (b) HC 70-xxi (1994–95); (c) HC 70-xxv ( 1994–95).

Tuesday 24 October—European Standing Committee B. European Community document: 6591/94, Comparative advertising. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 48-xxi ( 1993–94), HC 70-xii (1994–95).

Wednesday 25 October—European Standing Committee B. European Community document: 6871/95, Tourism. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 70-xix ( 1994–95) and HC 70-xxiii ( 1994–95).]


Monday 23 October


Reports Session 1993–94


No.
Report title
HC No.
Date of publication


40
Property Services in the English Occupied Royal Palaces
316
7 September


42
The Renewable Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Programme
387
8 September


43
The Industrial Injuries Scheme
368
21 September


44
British Army in Germany— Drawdown of Equipment and Stores
408
17 November


45
Export Credits Guarantee Department Appropriation Accounts 1992–93: Irregular Payments to Exporters
406
3 November


46
Registers of Scotland: Service to the Public
394
3 November


47
The British Film Institute
491
23 November


48
Management and Sale of Houses in Borders Region
303
24 November


49
National Health Service: Hospital Catering in England
427
1 December


50
National Insurance Fund Account 1992–93
419
7 December


51
Auditing Clinical Care in Scotland
375
8 December




Reports Session 1994–95


No.
Report title
HC No.
Date of publication


1
Ministry of Defence: The Major Projects Report (1993)
42
14 December


2
The Sports Council: Initiatives to Improve Financial Management and Control and Value for Money
93
11 January


3
Merseyside Development Corporation: Grand Regatta Columbus and Fanfare for a New World Concert
94
12 January






Reports Session 1994–95


No.
Report title
HC No.
Date of publication


4
Inland Revenue: Getting Tax Right First Time and Dealing with More Complex Postal Queries
105
19 January


5
Council Tax Valuations in England and Wales
137
8 February


6
Wolds Remand Prison
138
9 February


7
Excess Votes
280
14 March


8
NI Excess Votes
281
14 March


9
Improving Social Security Services in London: The Provision of Services to Customers
145
3 May


10
Appropriation Matters 1993–94
215
4 May


11
English Nature: Protecting SSIs
375
10 May


12
Property Holdings Leaseholds
106
11 May


13
Management in NHS Trusts in England
155
17 May


14
MOD: Management of Telephones
188
18 May


15
Resource Accounting and Budgeting
407
24 May


16
The Privatisation of NI Electricity
24
25 May


17
Department of Agriculture NI Science Service—Research and Development
25
25 May


18
NHS Day Hospitals for Elderly People in England
95
7 June


19
Fraud on the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme
200
8 June


20
Appropriation Account Matters 1993–94
207
14 June


21
Financial Health of Higher Education in England
139
15 June


22
Management of Intellectual Property
237
21 June


23
Value for Money at Grant Maintained Schools: A Review of Performance
225
22 June


24
Dtp: Land and Property for Road Building
43
28 June


25
Administration of the Crown Courts
173
29 June


26
Management of the Trident Works Programme
486
5 July





Reports Session 1994–95


No.
Report title
HC No.
Date of publication


27
General Practitioner— Fundholding in England
264
6 July


28
Severance Package for the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Huddersfield
242
12 July


29
Welsh Development Agency
376
13 July


30
Home Office: Entry in the United Kingdom
355
19 July


31
Scottish Courts: Administration of Scottish Courts
301
20 July


32
ODA: Management of Programme Aid
337
26 July


33
FCO Irregularities
330
27 July


34
Green Form Legal Aid Frauds
282
3 August


35
Administration of Retirement Pensions
415
3 August


36
VEM at Colleges in the Further Education Sector
309
9 August


37
NAO Estimate 1995–96
53
10 August


38
NAO Estimate 1995–96
52
10 August


39
Sale of Forward Civil Service—Catering
344
16 August


40
Suspension of Dr. O'Connell
322
17 August

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information, and accept his point that, at this time of the parliamentary year, there must be some uncertainty in future planning. Will the Leader of the House ensure that, during the debate on Wednesday 25 October on the national lottery, the Secretary of State for National Heritage is able to resolve the inconsistency between her junior Minister's answer to a parliamentary question on 27 June this year, and the statement earlier this week by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us whether the Government regard lottery funds as public money, as seems to be the case from what the Chief Secretary was saying.
As for the business after next week, will the Leader of the House assure us that time will be found before the end of the Session to debate the Procedure Committee's report on our trial of the Jopling proposals on the management of parliamentary time? Will he ensure that there will be time for a debate and decisions on the report which is expected from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life? I know that he is anxious that that Committee should report as soon as possible. Will he guarantee that time will be found for such a debate?
On related matters, will the Leader of the House tell us when he will be tabling the appropriate resolution to establish the new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to which the House has agreed in principle? Will he also give an assurance that the Select Committee on Employment will continue?
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position on Question Time involving the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? Will he confirm that hon. Members tabling questions to that Minister before the recess were told that such questions should be addressed not to the Deputy Prime Minister but to the First Secretary of State, but that, when he himself found out that that was the case, and despite the fact that questions appeared on the Order Paper addressed to the First Secretary of State, the Order Paper was changed, so that the questions were addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister? As the Deputy Prime Minister then declined to answer the first question to the Deputy Prime Minister, is that not a case of his making a mockery of the House's proceedings, and should not the Leader of the House be stopping that?

Mr. Newton: My gratitude to the hon. Lady for the generosity of her acknowledgement of the difficulties, expressed in the early part of her comments, was rather dissipated by her later remarks. My right hon. Friend is Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State.
The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 makes it clear that lottery funds are ultimately under the control and management of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I am advised that, because it is ultimately under ministerial control, lottery money must be classified as public money under internationally recognised standards for national accounts, but I shall of course bring the hon. Lady's apparent confusion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
As for Jopling, the hon. Lady has good cause to know that I am undertaking the usual consultations, with her among others, with a view to bringing appropriate resolutions before the House during what we call the spillover.
As for Nolan—again, the hon. Lady has good cause to know this because we are spending a great deal of time in Committee on the subject at the moment—the aim is to bring forward proposals and give the House the opportunity to debate them before Prorogation. All of us on the Committee are working hard to that end. I also hope to make progress with the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I am more than willing to listen to representations, but I should have thought that the convenient time to deal with it would be when we debate the matters to which I have just referred. I have not, however, made a definite decision about that.
As for the Select Committee on Employment, the hon. Lady knows that I am currently consulting, as is appropriate on new arrangements. However, I find it difficult to see a reason for departing from the long-established practice of matching Select Committees to Government Departments, and changing them when there are changes in the structure of Government Departments.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend may be aware of the mounting criticism in certain organs of the press about the amount of legislation going through the House under statutory instrument powers. I wonder whether he shares my concern that too much legislation is going through under such powers and is not receiving

sufficient scrutiny by the House, and that the matter should be debated. Or does he have news for the House that the Government are already considering the problem?

Mr. Newton: I cannot quite answer my hon. Friend in the terms which he would no doubt like because, if we are to have the debate on procedural matters that I am hoping for, he may be able to advert to that matter. On his general point, he will know that the Government are working very hard to reduce the amount of regulation.

Ms Liz Lynne: Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on the rise in teenage smoking which has just been announced? It is particularly important in the light of the new survey that links tobacco advertising and teenage smoking.

Mr. Newton: I cannot arrange for an urgent debate—certainly not during the spillover period—but I shall of course draw the hon. Lady's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the House should debate VE and VJ day, not only because it would be right in itself in this particular year, but because there is a risk that many thousands of people will feel that the House has not adequately honoured them?
The case of a constituent of mine in Finchley illustrates the point that I would urge on the Leader of the House. A lady who lives there was bombed in her house in 1944. She was blinded at the time, and has lived and is still living in the same house. Many thousands of people lived blameless and supportive lives way behind the soldiers' ranks, and feel that they too played an important part, which we could recognise in the House.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the whole House would want to join in paying tribute to, and indeed expressing respect for, my hon. Friend's constituent and many others who no doubt have similar experiences. On the question of recognition of these events, I thought that the rather splendid ceremony in Westminster Hall at the time of VE day—but very much recognising VJ day as well—was a proper and fitting tribute from the House.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Leader of the House will recall that I wrote to him many weeks ago as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund about the independent review body's recommendations in relation to the fund. Word has reached me—it is a welcome word—that the Leader of the House is proceeding with all speed to give effect to the decision of this House of 17 July. In anticipation of an early statement from him, can I thank him for the work that he is doing?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If he has not had a reply, I apologise for that. The work that has been required in relation to translating the thoughts of the House and the Senior Salaries Review Body into regulation form has proved extremely complex.

Mr. Stephen Day: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are approach and departure flight paths from Manchester airport over my constituency. He will therefore be aware that aircraft noise is a constant problem for many of my constituents. Currently, airports do not have the statutory power to fine aircraft which stray from


designated corridors without the permission of traffic control. Manchester airport, and indeed my constituents, would like that to be made a statutory right, so that the fines may provide some meaningful control over such aircraft movements. My talks with the Department of Transport suggest that it accepts that such action is necessary, and would require primary legislation. Will there be any opportunity at an early date for such legislation to be implemented?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, by tradition, I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech. Nor, at a time when there are many demands, would I want to excite his hopes too much, even having said that. I shall bring his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House has always been careful about the duties and support of the House of Commons. He will be aware that, when he is thinking about the Jopling report and the reforms that he will bring forward, a number of hon. Members will want to say that they are not overly impressed with some of the changes that have taken place, which have enabled the Government to escape proper scrutiny. I hope that he will not rush forward just on the basis of a fashionable change in hours, without thinking of the implications for legislation.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady was kind enough to use the words that she did at the beginning of her question, and I hope that I have shown that I do not seek to ride roughshod over people's reservations. However, there appears to be wide, and probably overwhelming, support in the House for changes along the lines of those with which the House has experimented this year.

Mr. David Sumberg: Notwithstanding the narrow debate scheduled for later today, may we have a debate next week on the prison building programme? That would give me an opportunity to recognise the decision by all parties on Salford city council to reject the Prison Service's proposal to build a prison next door to my constituency, and to ask the Prison Service to think again about that disastrous proposal.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will note that question but, for my part, I cannot promise another debate on prisons in the near future.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House on Lord Donaldson's assessment of the sinking of the Derbyshire? The House and the families of the Derbyshire bereaved should hear from the Secretary of State what Lord Donaldson had to say.

Mr. Newton: As ever, I shall remind my right hon. Friend of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing concern about that matter. I suppose that I could claim that I have arranged for the Secretary of State to be here to answer questions on Monday, but I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman would regard that as an adequate opportunity.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Leader of the House willing to postpone the three fishing orders next Monday for a week? As he knows, the Fisheries Council will meet next week to see whether it is possible to change

those ridiculous control measures, which would oblige our fishermen to make 170,000 individual reports, costing them £1.2 million, which would cost the average fishing vessel up to £5,000. How can we debate the orders next Monday without knowing the outcome of the review until about Thursday? Could we not simply delay the debate for a week? What is the problem?

Mr. Newton: I am mildly puzzled by that question, because the suggestion usually made to me is that the House should have opportunities for debate before a Fisheries Council. That is the purpose of that debate.

Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement and debate on the repair and replacement of system-built schools? My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) have a number of Derwent schools, which have been given a limited life, but we have never been able to get out of the Government a programme to fund their replacement. Birley Spa school in my constituency has been given only a two-year life, but the Government will still not commit themselves to funding a replacement for it, thereby blighting the lives of hundreds of children in my constituency. May we have a statement on precise Government policy in that regard?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a statement, but it is classically a question that I should want to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate on local government finance, so that we can consider the decision of Ealing's Labour council to cut £6 million off Ealing's budget, sack 100 people and virtually eliminate adult education, which it has a statutory duty to provide? It has done so in a totally careless way, blaming next year's gram settlement, which has not even been made.

Mr. Newton: I am always keen to satisfy my hon. Friend's appetite for revealing the iniquities of his local authority. I cannot assuage it at the moment, but in five or six weeks' time, there will be a statement on local authority expenditure.

Mr. Denis MacShane: The Leader of the House will be aware that, for the past six months, the Government have said that only one person, Nick Leeson, was responsible for the collapse of Barings. This week we have received an authoritative report from Singapore detailing collusion and a cover-up at the London end. We also now know that Barings gave £900,000 to Tory party funds in recent years. May we have a debate soon on the collusion and cover-up in London, above all to restore some confidence that the regulation and supervision of overseas trading banks in the City of London is now in safe hands?

Mr. Newton: We will obviously study the report of the Singapore Ministry of Finance carefully. It appears to me to confirm the main conclusions of the report published in London in July by the Board of Banking Supervision.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early opportunity to debate the governance of Scotland? He will be aware that the Labour party, the Liberals and others have come forward with their crackpot proposals for Edinburgh. With four


Scottish-based Scots in the Cabinet and the possibility of many more Scots in any future Labour Cabinet, including a Chief Whip, is it not about time in this Parliament that we got down to the serious business of finding out how well Scotland is governed?

Mr. Newton: We will be short of time in the next week or two even to debate such important subjects. I do not know whether there is any chance that my hon. Friend might manage to weave that subject into the debate next Tuesday on environmental concerns in Scotland, but he might have a try.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of what happened yesterday, when several hundred carers came to lobby their Members of Parliament, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about what use can be made of Westminster Hall?
Those people were unable to go into the Grand Committee Room, because a private Bill was being considered. They assembled in Westminster Hall, but were then told that they could not use the microphones because of reasons that the establishment had made clear on other occasions. Given that the VE day celebrations took place in Westminster Hall—in fact, it was a meeting which made use of microphone facilities and everything else—why is it that disabled people, many of them in wheelchairs, were not allowed to use microphones there to have a meeting with their Members of Parliament? Can we sort this out?

Mr. Newton: A number of my constituents were also here yesterday, so I am aware of some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am not responsible for the arrangements in Westminster Hall, although many people sometimes think I am, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of those very elevated people who are responsible for them.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the operation of the European Standing Committees? As I understand it, it was originally intended that there should be far more of those Committees, and that far more people with specialised interests should be involved in considering the various directives that are passed by the House under delegated legislation. I served on one of those Committees for four years and I enjoyed it greatly, but the difficulty now is that those Committee sittings clash with the sittings of Select Committees and other meetings. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the way in which those Committees are arranged, or would he reconsider the way in which they are constituted and operate?

Mr. Newton: I am always willing to consider constructive suggestions, but my hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the problems: quite apart from the great demands on Members of Parliament created by those Committees, it is a fact that the more Committees one sets up, the more likely they are to clash with other Committees. It is a question of trying to find the right balance.

Mr. Max Madden: I should like to add my voice to the concerns expressed already by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I urge that something be done to resolve the long and

continuing vexed issue of access by and the treatment of people with disabilities in this place. What happened yesterday was even worse than my hon. Friend made out, because efforts were made to send many of those people in wheelchairs to a Committee Room upstairs, access to which is virtually non-existent.
Why on earth is there unwillingness to allow meetings to be addressed in Westminster Hall, when Heads of State from all over the world have addressed both Houses in it? In fact, Parliament sat in that hall for a long time. It appears that petty tinpot bureaucracy is standing in the way, and means that, yesterday, many people went home feeling extremely disappointed at being unable to lobby their Member of Parliament whom they had come to meet. Why on earth can something not be done to ensure that in future when people with disabilities come to lobby their Members they are offered the use of Westminster Hall, microphones and other facilities to enable them to do so?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has raised two separate points. On the main point, in support of Bolsover, if I may put it like that, I shall not attempt to add to what I said. On the earlier point, which is about facilities for disabled people in the Palace generally, the hon. Gentleman knows that a substantial programme of work is under way to bring about modifications to help solve that problem.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend willing to arrange in the near future a debate on the middle east peace process, so that I might mention yet again in the House the plight of Ron Arad, who was captured many years ago in the Lebanon and whose family have been denied access to him or letters from him for at least eight years?

Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend that we want the release of Ron Arad, and indeed all those people in that part of the world who are held outside the due process of law. We continue to mention the matter to everyone who might be able to help, whenever we have the chance to do so.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Further to the question asked by the shadow Leader of the House about the tabling of questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House investigate why a question that I tabled before the recess, which was accepted by the Table Office, was removed on Monday from the Order Paper? In my opinion, it was a legitimate question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It asked him what proposals he had to promote equal treatment for men and women. I should have thought that, as one of his responsibilities is the working of government, that is a question that he should have answered.

Mr. Newton: I will look into that, but, as it happens, I am Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Women's Issues. The question may have been transferred to me but, if so, it has not yet reached me.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend consider an opportunity for an early debate on the assisted places scheme, so that we may explore the Government's plans to extend that scheme, and so that we may give the Opposition an opportunity to explain to my constituents—especially parents and pupils of the King's school and indeed the Queen's school, which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) attended—why


they should be denied the opportunity of an outstanding education at two outstanding schools in the city of Chester?

Mr. Newton: That really is a very good idea.

Mr. Tony Banks: As we shall be treading parliamentary water for a little while, would it be possible to hold a debate on the future of the BBC world service? There is enormous support on both sides of the House for the world service yet somehow, apparently, it continues to be confronted with cuts all the time.
The BBC world television service may be one of the few national institutions that has an international reputation, but it is a belt and braces show. Surely we should give further financial support to both those services. Perhaps, if the Government listen to the overwhelming opinion of both sides of the House, they might be persuaded of the case.

Mr. Newton: We all hold the work of the BBC world service in high regard, but not even that enables me to promise an early debate.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Scottish Grand Committee will meet in Aberdeen on Monday. Does he accept that meetings of that Committee in different parts of Scotland are little more than an expensive charade, as the Secretary of State for Scotland is not accountable to Members elected in Scotland? Does he accept that what people in Scotland require, and what they will have, is an elected parliament to control their Government within the United Kingdom?

Mr. Newton: The very fact that the Scottish Grand Committee is to meet in what I believe have been widely

welcomed arrangements in Aberdeen in Scotland is a measure of the importance that we attach to those matters. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be there, but perhaps he can make his speech there.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcome what the Leader of the House said about holding an early debate on the national lottery. However, will he ensure that, by the time that the debate is held, the confusion between the Welsh Office, the Department of National Heritage and the Treasury about double funding is cleared up?
I say that in the light of the conflict between the current guidance note from the Welsh Office, which has led to the Wales tourist board withdrawing a grant already offered to the Brecon jazz festival because it has now been successful in obtaining money from the national lottery, and the answer that was given by the junior Minister at the Department of National Heritage to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), which said:
Applicants are required to provide an element of partnership funding which can come from a variety of sources, including public funding."—[Official Report, 27 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 598.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, once and for all, the three Departments get their act together and do not issue totally contradictory instructions to innocent applicants for Government funding and national lottery funding?

Mr. Newton: Taking together the original points of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and those made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), I repeat my assurance that I shall bring to the attention of those participating in the debate the fact that there is confusion in the minds of Opposition Members.

Prescription Charges (Exemptions)

4 pm

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): With the permission of the House, I wish to make a statement on prescription rate exemption arrangements in the light of the European Court of Justice judgment on the Richardson case which we received earlier today.
Mr. Cyril Richardson is a married man who, in 1993, when aged 64, was required to pay a prescription charge of £4.75. His wife aged 62 had been exempt from charges on age grounds from age 60—whereas men are not exempt until they are age 65. Mr. Richardson contended that, as a result, he suffered discrimination contrary to directive 79/7/EEC, which provides for equal treatment of men and women in matters of social security. In December 1993, he sought leave to apply for judicial review, and in May 1994 the High Court referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a ruling.
Our position has always been that the directive, which is based on article 235 of the treaty of Rome and was therefore approved unanimously by member states in 1978, did not apply to the United Kingdom's prescription charge exemption arrangements; or, if it did, those arrangements were covered by the derogation for state pension age. We have argued that the directive applies to statutory schemes against risks such as sickness or old age and to social assistance in so far as it is intended to supplement those schemes. Our case was that exemption from prescription charges is a health not a social security statutory scheme; nor is it social assistance.
Alternatively, if those arguments were not to be accepted by the court, we argued that the clear link between our exemption arrangements for prescription charges and state pension age should mean that the derogation from the directive for state pension age would enable us to operate different age exemptions for men and women, as we now operate different state pension ages.
However, as many Members of the House will be aware, the court has found in Mr. Richardson's favour. The ECJ has ruled today that our arrangements fall within the scope of the directive, and that the derogation does not apply. That means that the existing clause in the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations, which provides for men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over to receive free prescriptions, is not consistent with European Community law.
It is open to us, within the terms of the judgment, to equalise the age exemption arrangements in a number of different ways—for example, at age 65 for both men and women. But equalising at 60 is, I believe, the right approach, because it protects the rights of those women aged 60 and over who currently receive free prescriptions. The Government accept the court's findings, and will comply fully.
The purpose of my statement today is to make clear to the House and to the public the arrangements that we are making, which will come into effect from tomorrow, for men aged 60 to 64 to obtain prescriptions without charge and, where appropriate, for them to obtain reimbursement of charges.
I have accordingly today made amending regulations to equalise from tomorrow, 20 October, the age exemption arrangements for men and women at the retirement age

for women. That means that more than 1 million men in England and Wales aged 60 to 64 will from tomorrow be entitled to free prescriptions on age grounds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have today made similar amending regulations.
I shall clarify the position on retrospection, about which there has been ill reporting in the media. Although the judgment was not limited in retrospective effect, it recognised that national procedural rules, such as time limits, will apply. Our regulations specify a maximum period of three months for retrospective claims, and that is the period for which claims will normally be allowed.
The existing regulations also make provision for reimbursement of charges paid by people who were exempt at the time of supply. We shall operate a simple procedure allowing men aged 60 to 64 at the time of supply initially to register a claim for a refund. Details of how those who may have a claim for a refund can register their interest will be published in national newspapers tomorrow, Friday 20 October 1995, and during next week.
We will also be distributing posters and coupons to national health service contractors in the next week or so. Claims for reimbursement should be registered within three months of the date on which the drug or appliance was supplied. The judgment explicitly recognises that national procedural rules, such as time limits, will still apply, although the judgement itself was not limited in retrospective effect.
I shall make a further announcement when the arrangements for inviting claims for refunds are finalised. I am sure that hon. Members will understand why I am not in a position to bring the arrangements to the House today at such short notice. We will at that time take steps to ensure that information is widely available about how to complete the detailed claim form—including what supporting information will be required.
Letters are being sent today to all hon. Members giving information about the case, the Government's response to it, the arrangements for informing the public and the national health service about revised exemption arrangements, and the procedure for registering an interest in claiming a refund. The letter includes details of the freepost address to which eligible claimants may wish to write and which will be in newspapers tomorrow.
In addition to the announcements in the national press, officials have written today to all health authorities, community pharmacists and other interests advising them of the change. A simple black and white notice is included for local display. The information explains that, until a revised print of the prescription form is available, patients should make manuscript alterations to the declaration of exemption on the reverse of existing forms.
As I have already said, I shall make a further announcement when the detailed arrangements for claiming refunds are finalised.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister's message today to Cyril Richardson is surely: "Who dares, wins."
I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he confirm that the Government were first aware that their prescription exemptions were not consistent with European law regarding equal treatment for men and women as long ago as 1985, and that the Government


relied on a derogation dealing with pensions and social security benefits? Will the Minister confirm that, although the judgment is retrospective to 1979, today's announcement effectively confines retrospective reimbursement to prescriptions supplied in the last three months?
The Minister told us that the judgment explicitly recognises that national rules, such as time limits, will still apply. What existing national procedural rules is he relying on in order to restrict retrospection to a three-month period? Given that he is accepting the principle of retrospection, albeit in a very circumscribed form, will he inform the House what implications that acceptance will have for other cases that are currently before the court?
What is the cost of equalising the exemption at the age of 60 in a full financial year? Will the Minister estimate the cost of the retrospective element in his announcement today, and will he tell the House whether the money that is to pay for it is new money, or will it be diverted from resources at present allocated to other areas of patient care in the national health service?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that, when the directive was introduced, prescription charges were 20p, and that, if they had been indexed in line with inflation, today they would stand at 53p? Surely that tenfold increase in real terms exacerbates the unfairness of the situation with which the Minister has dealt today.

Mr. Malone: I will not be tempted to respond to the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman that are slightly wider than my statement today. I can confirm that the Government understood that this course of action was a possibility under regulations and a directive that were agreed to by a Labour Government in 1978 and under a policy of paying at differential ages of 60 and 65, which was also introduced by a Labour Government.
As to retrospection, the answer is very simple: yes, it is for a three-month period only. I am not in a position today to inform the House about other cases. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that, on a busy day, I wish to deal with only this matter.
The cost will be £40 million in a full year, and we estimate that the retrospective element will be about £10 million for the three-month period. I am delighted to confirm for the hon. Gentleman that those costs will not affect money that has already been allocated to direct patient care.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Union is a half-formed federal structure which has no means of enforcing its judgments against Britain? Does he agree that the time is rapidly approaching when the only honourable and sensible thing to say in response to the gross interference in our domestic affairs is that we will not obey the orders of the European Court?

Mr. Malone: No, I cannot say that. My hon. Friend knows full well that it is Government policy to comply with decisions of all courts when they cannot be appealed

further—if the Government were to wish to appeal. That has always been the position, and it is well understood by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Minister undertake not to recoup the charges by extra charges on the rest of the prescriptions?

Mr. Malone: I have already told the House that the funds allocated to patient care will not be affected. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the allocation of health service funds through the year involves decisions being taken at the proper time.

Mr. John Whittingdale: Is not the ruling another argument for a wholesale review of prescription charges? Is it not absurd that, four weeks ago, Mr. Allan Sharpe, a pharmacist, should be fined for dispensing a prescription privately when it was cheaper for him to do so? Has the time not come to restrict exemption categories to those who genuinely cannot afford to pay, and to use the money saved to bring down the overall level of the prescription charge?

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend will be well aware that we reviewed prescription charges in 1993. There is no intention of carrying out a further fundamental review.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I welcome the Government's announcement. Having regard to the other options available to them in terms of age of equalisation, it was wholly right that they should act quickly to end any uncertainty. However, I was puzzled as to why the Minister selected three months for the retrospective element. As I understand the judgment, there was no time limit. He suggested that he was founding on some regulations to establish that time limit. I would be interested to hear exactly why he chose to implement those particular regulations.

Mr. Malone: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter. Our main purpose was to deal with it quickly, to end uncertainty and to put in hand arrangements so that people affected can take action as quickly as possible. The rules for applying for a refund of prescription charges have a time limit of a three-month period.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I compliment my hon. Friend on the brisk efficiency with which he has made his statement, but it is a humiliating and demeaning experience to see one of Her Majesty's Ministers changing a settled policy simply because the Government have been told to do so by the European Court. If it was not possible on this occasion to pause and reflect a moment about whether that is a suitable position for the Government, at the very least will steps now be taken within the Government to consider how much longer we can be kicked around by the European Court?

Mr. Malone: I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I am here today to deal with the effects of this judgment. I am sure that others will have heard what he said on the wider matter.

Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside the xenophobia that we have just heard from the Tory Benches, is the Minister aware that many people—


although not himself, apparently—will warmly congratulate Mr. Cyril Richardson, who lives in my borough? Is this not a demonstration of a single British citizen fighting for justice, he it in the British courts or the European courts? It is a fine British tradition. Many people will warmly congratulate Mr. Richardson and many will benefit from what he has achieved.

Mr. Malone: It is certainly a case of a private individual taking determined action against a policy which had been settled in terms of equality of payment by the Government and the Opposition for quite some time. I do not for one second accept that what has happened is good. We have to comply with the finding of the court, but I believe that the settled policy was right, and the Government were right to oppose the action by Mr. Richardson until today's conclusion.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even before the judgment, the rebate system in Britain was the most generous in Europe, with 80 per cent. prescription charges being remitted compared with only 60 per cent. when Labour was in office?

Mr. Malone: I agree with that. Of course, the funds from prescription charges—some £310 million—are devoted towards patient care. That is also to be welcomed.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister assure the House that those who have prepayment certificates for prescriptions will be dealt with adequately in any refund arrangements that are made?

Mr. Malone: That will be the case. If they fall partially across the three-month period, there will be a proportional rebate.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I would welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that the decision will not affect patient care. Can he confirm that prescription charges represent only two thirds of the average value of medicine dispensed?

Mr. Malone: I confirm that that is so—so they are extremely good value.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Although I welcome the statement in general, I shall press the Minister further on the way in which the change will be funded. Already, 74 out of the top 100 prescribed items cost less than £5.25. There is already dual taxation on the privilege of being ill if one is working. Will the Minister ensure that that gap will not widen as a result of his statement?

Mr. Malone: I have told the House of the general principles on which the change will be funded, which will be from general budgets. It will not directly affect patient care.

Mr. Peter Butler: Will my hon. Friend confirm that European Council directive 79/7/EEC, which is being applied in this case, was passed unanimously during the time of the last Labour Government, and therefore with their support? Despite

that, neither the Labour party nor the Government ever thought that that directive would have such an effect, until today's astonishing decision.

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There was a consensus until the challenge. I find the European Court's judgment somewhat surprising, but that does not mean that we can do anything other than comply.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister clarify his answer to the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), when he said that prescription charges were last reviewed in 1993? The previous Secretary of State, in her response to the Health Select Committee's report on the NHS drug budget, promised to review a series of anomalies. I will put one of them to the Minister.
Chronic diabetics are exempt from prescription charges but a new drug, Navopen, has been introduced in such a way that the Government are insisting that chronic diabetics must buy their own needles, which should surely be included in prescriptions. It is inconsistent to provide the drug free of charge, but not the means of administering it. Today, I wrote to the Secretary of State on behalf of a constituent who is a student, who finds it extremely difficult to buy needles to enable her to administer that drug.

Mr. Malone: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reinforcing the point of his letter to my right hon. Friend by raising it in the context of my statement. I was referring to the wholesale review of prescription charges in 1993. No such review is in prospect.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Why did the Government choose to implement this humiliating decision today, Father than put a proposition to the House to decide whether to implement it in this age or in some other age? What is the European requirement to implement the judgment immediately? Was it the Government's choice to do so, without seeking the advice of the House and approval for the expenditure?
As the European Court is becoming a superior, non-elected Government, should not the British Government think terribly carefully before agreeing to further concessions of our freedom and liberty—as they have before, despite clear warnings by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Malone: I have no doubt that colleagues responsible for wider matters will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks, not for the first time. The Government came to the House quickly, simply because of fairness, not compulsion. If the public must claim within a three-month period, it is important to make the arrangements as clear as possible, so that proper claims can be registered.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth that the Government—faced with the judgment, and having calculated that it will cost £40 million in a full year and £10 million for retrospection—have already begun to devise ideas for clawing that money back in further prescription charges, with the result that the people will not benefit at all? That money will not come from the Exchequer. If prescription charges rise above the official


cost of living index next time, millions of people will know that they have been conned again by this lousy, rotten Tory Government.

Mr. Malone: That will not happen.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can my hon. Friend make it clear that the regulations concerning three months' retrospection for claims have been in place a long time? They were implemented not because anybody anticipated the decision in the Richardson case, and the European Court was well aware of the existence of those regulations when it gave its decision.

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. The fact of the existence of the regulations was before the court and was known to it when it came to its conclusions.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister has confirmed that decisions taken by the supreme European Court cannot be challenged. How confident is he that retrospection of three months cannot be challenged in courts in England or Scotland? Is it not the case that about two years ago the European Court of Justice, in relation to the equality directive, made a decision in a Dutch case involving the Dutch Government that retrospective payments in social security cases could be made up to 1 April 1992? How confident is the Minister that his decision on three months is unchallengeable?

Mr. Malone: I am very confident.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I have, as I am sure the House has, a great deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend in the predicament in which he finds himself. Will he tell the House when Britain decided that decisions as to who should and should not pay for their prescriptions should be made by a bunch of foreign judges, who do not have to find the money, rather than a democratically accountable Government, who do? Were the British people aware that such a decision was taken? If they were not, is it not a constitutional necessity that our powers should be regained?

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend knows that I do not intend to wander down the tempting path that he and other of my hon. Friends have offered me. I am restricting myself to the statement. I have no doubt that he will make his views known in his persistent and regular way to others within the Government.

Orders of the Day — Home Secretary (Prison Service)

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's Question Time the Prime Minister said that in the debate that is about to take place the Home Secretary would be producing comprehensive evidence to dispel the allegations that have been made against him in relation to the Prison Service. If the Home Secretary is to refer extensively to documents, are you aware of any preparations having been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to enable all Members to obtain copies at the Vote Office at the earliest opportunity? If not, hon. Members will be at a severe disadvantage if we do not have access to the full documentation.

Madam Speaker: The House must wait to see how the debate proceeds. I am sure that the Home Secretary will be as helpful as possible to the entire House.
I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister. I understand that there is some uncertainty about the application of the sub judice rule in today's debate following the taking out of a writ against the Home Secretary. That is a civil case which has not yet been set down for trial. If hon. Members refer to page 378 of "Erskine May", they will find that in these circumstances the sub judice rule does not come into force. That said, I do not believe that it would be right for the debate to concentrate on whether the recent dismissal of the chief executive of the Prison Service was fair or unfair. I am glad to note that the issue is not mentioned in either the Opposition's motion or the Government's amendment.
As so many Members wish to contribute to the debate, I have had to introduce a 10-minute limit. Members will be lucky to be called today, given the short time that is available for the debate.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the unwillingness of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to accept responsibility for serious operational failures of the Prison Service.
The Home Secretary has vested in him by section 1 of the Prisons Act 1952 all powers and jurisdictions in relation to prisons and prisoners in England and Wales. He is responsible to the House for the exercise of those powers and jurisdictions. The Act makes no distinction between his responsibility for the policy of the Prison Service and the operation of that policy. We say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is following a constitutional fiction in seeking wholly to separate the two. He says that he is responsible only for his policy towards prisons but not for operational matters, for which he is accountable but not responsible. Responsibility for the operation of the Prison Service, says the Secretary of State, is in the hands of the Director General of the Prison Service. In return for that operational responsibility, the director general has vested in him, by the agency framework document and other documents, power over operational matters, in which the Secretary of State says emphatically that he does not interfere.
We say, however, that in practice the Secretary of State has on numerous occasions taken decisions and otherwise interfered with the operation of the Prison Service, but because of the fiction that he is not involved in it or that he is not responsible for operational matters, he has at all times had to avoid any admission that he has been so involved. That has produced two results. First, in the damning words of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Stephen Tumim,
it means that the Home Secretary is not responsible for anything at all.
That means that the Home Secretary takes the credit but is free of any responsibility. In other words, he has exercised power without responsibility.
Secondly, we say that the Secretary of State has had to be so evasive as to his real involvement in operational matters that in respect of the fate of Mr. John Marriott, the former governor of Parkhurst prison, he gave explanations to the House and to the Home Affairs Select Committee which are uncorroborated and wholly at variance with other evidence that is now available.

Mr. Edward Garnier: On the subject of veracity, I assume that the hon. Gentleman accepts that Mr. Derek Lewis is a man of impeccable veracity. Will he therefore support the evidence that Mr. Derek Lewis gave to the Home Affairs Select Committee, "The Frost Programme", the Daily Mail and the "Today" programme in mid-January 1995, when he said that it was he who made the decision on operational grounds to move Mr. Marriott, the governor?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal with precisely those points.
Let me deal with each of the matters in turn. First, there is the distinction that the Secretary of State draws between policy and operations. In questions on the statement on the Prison Service on Tuesday 10 January 1995, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) put this to the Secretary of State when he said:
but there is no proper control of security at the prisons. Is not that something for which he—
the Home Secretary—
must take responsibility?
The Secretary of State replied:
With regard to operational policy, there has always been a division between policy matters and operational matters … I really do not see … how, whatever structure or framework is in place, one can avoid a sensible distinction between policy and operational matters."—[Official Report, 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 39–40.]
The problem for the Secretary of State is that he is the only one who believes that in practice such a sensible distinction can be made to the point of rigidity to which he takes it, for if ministerial responsibility means anything, it must mean that his policy is judged against the operation of that policy. How else can we judge a policy? Policy is not some intellectual abstract. It can be judged only by whether it has good or bad effect.
Judge Stephen Tumim said earlier this year that the Prison Service faced a crisis of confidence. That crisis has grown worse since he spoke those words. Is it any wonder that the service is in crisis when it has no effective leadership? The Secretary of State provides none. Indeed, he does not even pretend to provide any, because he says

that he is not responsible for the operation of the service. The Director General of the Prison Service, who was personally appointed by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and was complimented to the hilt by the Secretary of State in the House on 10 January, has now been dismissed without notice. There is only an acting successor, Mr. Richard Tilt, who on the day of his appointment was in open disagreement with the Secretary of State, telling a meeting of prison governors that in his view the removal of Mr. Lewis was "unnecessary".
Virtually everyone associated with the Prison Service—the governors, the staff, all six trade unions, Judge Tumim—have palpably lost confidence in the Secretary of State. As we heard on the radio this morning, that now includes the chairman of the Association of Members of Boards of Visitors, Mr. Julian Alliss, who called on the Secretary of State to resign.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear his view? Does he think that the Director General of the Prison Service should have been dismissed? Let us have an answer to that.

Mr. Straw: As the—[Interruption.] I am about to answer the question. As Madam Speaker made clear, perhaps before the hon. Gentleman came into the House, the issue before the House is not whether Mr. Derek Lewis should have been dismissed—[Interruption.] That is the subject of Mr. Lewis's legal action against—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has the right to answer questions as he believes is appropriate.

Mr. Straw: The issue before the House is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for running the Prison Service.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has not Madam Speaker just ruled that the issue is not sub judice and therefore could be discussed if the House so wished?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to read out the ruling, other than to say that the matter is not sub judice. However, Madam Speaker drew the attention of the House to the fact that neither the motion nor the amendment referred to the issue and she therefore hoped that the debate would not be on that issue.

Mr. Straw: It is certainly the case that a great many of those with far greater knowledge of Mr. Derek Lewis's competence do not believe that he should have been summarily dismissed by the Secretary of State. That is why two non-executive directors, both with great experience outside the service, have now tendered their resignation in protest against the treatment of Derek Lewis. Mr. Geoff Keeys resigned yesterday and Mrs. Urmila Bannerjee, a senior director of British Telecom, resigned today.
For all that, the Secretary of State continues blithely to refuse to acknowledge any responsibility. When the Woodcock report into the Whitemoor escapes was published, he denied responsibility by claiming that the report contained "no recommendations to me".

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Surely the real question is not the one put to my hon. Friend by


the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), but the one answered by the Home Secretary on 10 January 1995. When I put it to him that Mr. Derek Lewis should be dismissed, the Home Secretary said:
The Prison Service is clearly going through a difficult time. The director general is the best person to take it through that difficult time."—[Official Report, 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 40.]
What has changed since then other than the Home Secretary's need for a scapegoat?

Mr. Straw: For all the crisis which has now engulfed the Prison Service—I understand Conservative Members' unwillingness to consider the fact of the crisis over which the Secretary of State has presided, but that is the reality and it is known outside the House to everybody associated with the Prison Service—the Secretary of State continues blithely to refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for this crisis. He did so when the Woodcock report—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a relatively short debate and hon. Members should listen to the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Straw: As I have said, despite the extent of the crisis now engulfing the Prison Service, the Secretary of State refuses to acknowledge any responsibility for it.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way later.
The Secretary of State evaded responsibility when the Woodcock report on the Whitemoor escapes was published, claiming that it contained "no recommendations to me" although it stated in terms:
There exists at all levels within the Service some confusion as to the respective roles of Ministers, the Agency Headquarters and … Prison Governors. In particular, the Enquiry has identified the difficulty of determining what is an operational matter and what is policy, leading to confusion as to where responsibility lies.
The Secretary of State did the same on Monday, when he sought to avoid any responsibility for the matters which were the subject of the report by claiming that Learmont
has not found that any policy decision of mine, directly or indirectly, caused the escape."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 31.]
No such words were used anywhere in Sir John's report. Moreover, the Learmont report is replete with criticism of political involvement by Ministers in the operation of the service. Paragraph 3.83 states:
The Director General … needs minimum political involvement in the day-to-day operation of the Service",
and then charts how the reverse has been the case.
The report continues:
Any organisation which boasts one Statement of Purpose, one Vision, five Values, six Goals, seven Strategic Priorities and eight KPIs"—
key performance indicators—
without any clear correlation between them, is producing a recipe for total confusion and exasperation amongst those undertaking a most difficult and dangerous task on behalf of the general public.
Who is responsible for the "total confusion" identified by Learmont? Is it the Prison Service board, the director general or someone else? That "recipe for total confusion" is contained within the framework document itself. It is here that we find the

one Statement of Purpose, one Vision, five Values, six Goals, seven Strategic Priorities and eight KPIs, without any clear correlation between them".
That document, drawn up by the former Secretary of State for the Home Department—now the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is explicitly endorsed by the current Secretary of State.
I wrote to the Secretary of State on Monday, asking him where the distinction between policy and operations was explained. His private secretary wrote back saying that the document
explains the distinction between operations and policy.
The document, of course, does no such thing. What it does do—in Sir John Learmont's damning phrase—is to prescribe a recipe for the total confusion for which the Secretary of State is responsible.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred in an intervention to the question that he asked on 10 January. In that question, he described Mr. Lewis as "arrogant and incompetent". As so much of the charge that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is making relates to Mr. Lewis, will he now tell us whether he agrees with his right hon. Friend that the man was and is arrogant and incompetent?

Mr. Straw: The arrogance and incompetence are the Secretary of State's.
The Secretary of State will, I believe, seek to rely on the framework document for the Prison Service agency, or on that part of that document which states that
the Secretary of State will expect to be consulted by the Director General on the handling of operational matters which could give rise to grave public or parliamentary concern.
However, the preceding sentence states:
The Home Secretary will not normally become involved in the day-to-day management of the Prison Service.
We now know that the reverse has been the case. Mr. Lewis makes that claim in his statement of claim, and the Learmont report corroborates it. Mr. Lewis claims that, on average, he had to attend meetings lasting an hour every day with the Secretary of State and others. He claims that on occasion after occasion the Secretary of State questioned decisions that were plainly within the director general's remit of day-to-day management, including
pressure brought to bear upon him in relation to internal disciplinary decisions taken by prison governors
relating to the disciplining of individual members of staff and prisoners—
with a view to increasing the severity of the action to be taken".
There is overwhelming evidence in the Woodcock report, in the Learmont reports, in the now public documents produced by Mr. Lewis, and in the constant complaints made by prison governors, of day-to-day interference in the running of the service, which goes well beyond the right laid down in the framework document for the Secretary of State to be consulted in certain circumstances.
There is, however, no more compelling evidence than the Secretary of State's involvement in the decisions about the future of Mr. John Marriott, the former governor of Parkhurst, which were announced to the House on 10 January. The framework document and the code of discipline in the Prison Service make it clear that


decisions on the transfer and disciplining of staff are matters for the director general of the Prison Service and his managers, and not for the Secretary of State.
The code also crucially distinguishes between a transfer of a member of staff and his or her suspension from duty. It restricts suspension, saying that
while suspension is not in itself a punishment or disciplinary penalty it may be seen as such, and that detached duty must be considered, where appropriate, as an alternative to suspension.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
It is also claimed that as the discretion—

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will give way quickly to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marlow: Some time ago, the hon. Gentleman said that, if the policy is right, it will be all right. Is it not possible that the policy can be right, but that, because what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said was an "arrogant and incompetent" subordinate, is in place, the policy can fail? If that happens because of an arrogant and incompetent subordinate should not that arrogant and incompetent subordinate be fired? Would not the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) fire him in the same circumstances or is he concerned with seeking to smear the Government and not the slightest bit interested in the reform of the Prison Service?

Mr. Straw: What is perfectly apparent is that the people who are not the slightest bit interested in the facts of this situation are Conservative Members. The Secretary of State has continually sought to evade his responsibility for the proper running of the Prison Service. That should be the Secretary of State's overriding policy and it is that which he has evaded continually to this House and outside.
The code of staff discipline also makes it plain that, as discretion about staff transfer or suspension is vested in the director general and not in the Secretary of State, so too is the timing of such decisions. That is far from a trivial matter. If the confidence of staff in the management is to be sustained, staff generally must believe that their colleagues facing transfer or suspension are treated fairly and, where appropriate, without gratuitous humiliation. There is a world of difference between giving time—just a few days—to go with some dignity, and being peremptorily removed from one's office at a minute's notice.
It is common ground that the director general, after consultation with his senior managers, came to the conclusion late on Monday 9 January that Mr. Marriott should be moved from his post as governor of Parkhurst, should then stay on the Isle of Wight for a period to help with immediate investigations, and should then take up a desk job at Prison Service headquarters. The director general considered the question of whether Mr. Marriott should be suspended from duty, but, having regard to the code, decided that that would be wholly unjustified.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Following what the hon. Gentleman has just said, was he right when he wrote in The Guardian yesterday that Mr. Lewis was against the removal of Marriott?

Mr. Straw: Yes, Mr. Lewis was against the suspension of Mr. Marriott, as I will show. It has always been on the record—there has never been any doubt about it—that Mr. Lewis was in favour of and indeed decided on Mr. Marriott's transfer. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not recognise that distinction.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the precise words that he used in The Guardian yesterday? In precisely the words used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), but not the words the hon. Gentleman has just used, he said in The Guardian yesterday:
John Marriott was moved against the advice of Derek Lewis".
Does the hon. Gentleman now accept that that was a completely incorrect allegation?

Mr. Straw: If that was what The Guardian said, it was wrong because I—[Interruption.] The last thing I am responsible for is misprints in The Guardian.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: That is the last intervention I am taking. There has never been the least doubt that Mr. Derek Lewis was responsible for the decision to move John Marriott. What is at issue is whether Mr. Lewis was responsible for seeking to suspend Mr. Marriott, which attempt was made by the Secretary of State and not Mr. Lewis.
It is also common ground that, at 4.10 pm on the next afternoon, 10 January, the Secretary of State told the House:
The present governor"—
of Parkhurst—
is today being removed from his duties at Parkhurst."—[Official Report, 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 33.]
[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House should at least listen to every speech.

Mr. Straw: Where the House and the country are faced with two conflicting and different stories relates to what happened between the decision made by Mr. Lewis to move Mr. Marriott with his duties, and the statement that the Secretary of State made in the House on 10 January that Mr. Marriott was that day being removed from his duties as governor.
The Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the decision to move Mr. Marriott was an operational decision made by the director general and not by him. The Secretary of State also said of that decision:
it was there in black and white"—
in the disciplinary code—
the director general is very familiar with it, there was no need therefore for me to talk to him.
More emphatically, the Secretary of State, in words that he will come to regret, answered an overall charge that I had put to him with the words:
I reject absolutely the hon. Gentleman's allegations of interference".


The director general, however, charges that there was extreme interference by the Secretary of State in his decision to move but not to suspend Mr. Marriott, and about the time when that decision should take effect. In his statement of claim, he complains of
the extreme and unjustified pressure exerted
by the Secretary of State—
upon the Plaintiff … to suspend the former Governor of Parkhurst Prison, rather than (as the Plaintiff had decided to do on operational grounds) to move him to another non-operational post".

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I am not giving way. I will give way to the Secretary of State but not to hon. Members. I have given way six times already.
The statement of claim says that the
pressure included a requirement for the Plaintiff to reconsider his decision by a specified deadline and the suggestion that he (the Defendant) would consider overruling the Plaintiff if he did not comply".
The former director general goes on to say:
following the expiry of the deadline referred to … above"—
the defendant insisted—
contrary to objections put forward by the Plaintiff on operational grounds, that the statement to be made by the defendant to the House of Commons later that day concerning the position of the said governor of Parkhurst Prison would include the word 'today' in reference to the steps to be taken (as indeed it subsequently did)".
I have spoken with Mr. Lewis at some length and he has confirmed to me the accuracy of the allegations in his statement of claim. He has also said that he is ready—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am quite capable of saying the appropriate word or words. I do not need help. The hon. Gentleman who is speaking from the Front Bench deserves to be heard by the whole House, and I mean the whole House. I hope that the House will now settle down and just listen to the hon. Gentleman. If he is giving way, he will give way. If not, I should be grateful if those seeking to intervene resumed their seats instead of continually standing up.

Mr. Straw: As I said before, I quite understand the reluctance of Conservative Members to listen to the facts of this case and the seriousness of the allegations made against the Secretary of State.
Mr. Lewis has said that he is ready to justify and corroborate what he said in his statement of claim to the Home Affairs Select Committee and is writing to the Chairman to confirm that. Mr. Lewis is adamant that he was put under intense pressure by the Secretary of State at a meeting on the morning of 10 January to suspend rather than to move Mr. Marriott. He said that it was an extremely heated meeting during which he was subjected to greater pressure to change a decision which was properly his than on any other occasion that he can recall.
Mr. Lewis then told me that he was directed by the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision and withdrew from the meeting to do so, although others remained. During that withdrawal, he decided to stand by his decision and informed the Secretary of State of that when the meeting resumed. As he went into the resumed meeting, he was shown the text of the Secretary of State's statement, which included the words used that the
present governor is today being removed"—[Official Report, 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 3.]

as governor of Parkhurst. Mr. Lewis says that he objected to the use of the word "today" as he had already decided that the precise timing of the move, within a framework of a few days, was a matter for his operational director, Philippa Drew, to determine at a meeting with Mr. Marriott at Parkhurst to which Miss Drew had travelled that morning.
Mr. Lewis says that the Secretary of State, in response to his objections, simply indicated that he would make his statement as drafted, including the word "today". The allegation is therefore—[Interruption.] If the Secretary of State wishes to deny it, he can deny it now if he wishes. He has every chance to deny it. If he wants to deny it, he can deny it now.

Mr. Howard: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what Mr. Lewis said to the Select Committee on 18 January? He said that
it was essential for operational reasons that the change in governor took place immediately so that there was no distraction or confusion and there was clarity as to who was in charge.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has not answered the question. Did the Secretary of State insert into his statement the word "today" against the advice of the director general—yes or no? Let me ask the Secretary of State the question again. Did he insert into his statement to the House, for which he was responsible, the word "today"—Mr. Marriott was to be removed "today"—against the advice of Mr. Lewis?

Mr. Howard: The director general answered that question himself in what he told the Select Committee on 18 January. Every decision that was made on that afternoon was a decision of the director general. It was the director general who decided exactly what happened, as he has told the Home Affairs Select Committee on more than one occasion.

Mr. Straw: The House has now heard the Secretary of State refuse to answer the question twice. It is of crucial importance. Here we have a major dispute as to the evidence between what Mr. Lewis says and the Secretary of State says. Mr. Lewis was not asked this question in the Home Affairs Select Committee; he was asked a different question. Let me ask the Secretary of State this question again. The public are watching. Did the Secretary of State himself insert the word "today" into his statement against the advice of the director general? I ask the Secretary of State to answer that question, yes or no.
As the Secretary of State will not answer, we shall instead let his civil servants give their evidence. I have here the minutes of the meeting which took place on the morning of 10 January. In a moment I shall ensure that the House knows that.
The allegation against the Secretary of State is that he interfered in two decisions of the director general and that, in respect of one of them—as to the timing of the move—he overrode a decision of an operational nature by the fait accompli of his statement to the House. The Secretary of State has sought to say that that version of events is untrue. A statement issued by the Home Office on Tuesday evening said that he
did not tell Mr. Lewis that the Governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately. The Home Secretary did not threaten to instruct Mr. Lewis to suspend the governor of Parkhurst".


As we have just heard, the Secretary of State has refused on three occasions to deny a complete difference in testimony. Either Mr. Lewis is telling the truth or the Home Secretary is. Only one of them can he correct.
In briefing issued by the Home Office and Conservative central office, the Secretary of State has sought to rely on the evidence of the director general to the Home Affairs Select Committee, as we have just heard, that
I and other members of the senior management team concluded … for operational reasons that it was vital we made a change in the … governor".
That, however, has never been in dispute.
In giving evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Lewis was bound by the instructions of the Cabinet Office that
Agency Chief Executives give evidence on behalf of the Minister to whom they are accountable and are subject to that Minister's instruction".

Mr. Howard: Rubbish.

Mr. Straw: It is not rubbish—it happens to be from paragraph 42 of Cabinet Office instructions to every agency chief executive. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that Mr. Lewis should have refused to accept the instructions of the Minister as to that particular?

Mr. Howard: I am suggesting that it is rubbish—and disgraceful rubbish—to suggest that anything in that guidance or any other guidance requires a civil servant to lie to Parliament, which is what the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that the former director general did.

Mr. Straw: I am not suggesting that for a moment. The Secretary of State cannot rely on the use of the director general's adverb "immediately" to suggest that he personally was requiring that the governor of Parkhurst went "today". The Secretary of State has refused three times to answer the question.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: If Mr. Lewis was under some constraint, according to that direction, at the Home Affairs Select Committee on 18 January, why did he say exactly the same thing when he was under no such constraint three days earlier on "The Frost Programme"?

Mr. Straw: He is still bound. In any event, those answers to that question in no sense elucidate whether the Secretary of State insisted, against the advice of his own director general, that the word "today" should be inserted into the statement. Three times the Secretary of State has refused to answer.
What is in dispute is what happened on 10 January between Mr. Lewis and the Secretary of State. We do not have to rely on the word of the Secretary of State alone. On the question of the decision to remove Mr. Marriott "today", there is ample corroboration.
We know that this part of the Secretary of State's statement was transmitted to Miss Drew in Parkhurst, first by phone and then by fax. She then realised that the discretion that she had been given, which is in no sense inconsistent with the word "immediately", to determine within a matter of a few days when Mr. Marriott should leave his desk, had been overridden by the Secretary of State. Having received a telephone call and fax, she had no alternative but to act immediately on that fait accompli and remove Mr. Marriott from his office that day.
That is confirmed by those present in Parkhurst, including the chairman of the board of visitors, Mr. Richard Gully, and is consistent with the letter that Mr. Lewis wrote to the Select Committee stating that Miss Drew
informed me of (rather than suggested) the specific action that had been taken".
In other words, in that letter Mr. Lewis is making it clear that the decision about the timing of the removal of Mr. Marriott was one made not by him but by someone else, namely the Secretary of State. If there is any doubt about that, why does the Secretary of State not accept the proposal put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister and allow Miss Drew and Mr. Marriott to give their own evidence on the matter?
Then there is the question of whether the Secretary of State sought the suspension of Mr. Marriott, not just his transfer, at a meeting on the morning of 10 January. It is well known, not least to the press, that the Secretary of State wanted Mr. Marriott's head and wanted to present it to the House that afternoon. He wanted to say that Mr. Marriott had been sacked, as a suspension would show. What is more, those briefing the press on the Secretary of State's behalf gave exactly that steer to the press before and after the Secretary of State's statement, which is why in virtually every newspaper the verbs "sacked" or "fired" were used. The Daily Mail, for example, said:
Parkhurst Governor Fired Over Break Out".
Time and again the Secretary of State has denied the charge which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made on Tuesday that he asked the director general to suspend Mr. Marriott. He effectively denied it in his evidence to the Select Committee when he said that
there was no need to talk to
the director general about such matters. He evaded the question when he was asked on "Newsnight" and he explicitly denied it, as we have heard, in his statement—

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will go to the minutes first and then I shall give way. The Home Secretary explicitly denied in his statement issued on Tuesday evening that he told Mr. Lewis that the governor should be suspended immediately.
I have here, as I have told the House, the minutes of the meeting—

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Straw: In a moment.

Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No. I have the minutes of the meeting which took place on the morning of 10 January, drawn up by the Home Secretary's private secretary, Miss McNaughton. The note is couched in the usual—

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Straw: I will give way in a moment. [Interruption.].

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor clearly gives way, every hon. Member must resume his seat. Mr. Straw, are you giving way?

Mr. Straw: In a moment, when I have read these minutes out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] It is too late.


I gave the Secretary of State three occasions on which to answer the question earlier, but he was not interested in answering it. What the minutes first show—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way, you coward."]—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know who said the word "coward"—[Interruption.] Order. It is not a parliamentary word and I should be grateful if those who feel inclined to use it would go outside the Chamber.

Mr. Straw: This minute is in the form of a note addressed to Mr. Lewis. It said:
You explained that it was proposed to move the Governor to other duties, pending the outcome of the disciplinary investigation. The Home Secretary asked why this action was being taken, and you explained there were several grounds"—
which were then set out.
The Home Secretary said that these were serious charges at any time, but following the extra emphasis which Governors had been instructed to give to security post-Whitemoor they could scarcely be over-stated. The Home Secretary said that he entirely agreed with your analysis that Mr. Marriott could not stay as Governor of Parkhurst".
The note goes on to show, in my judgment, that the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] It shows that he was the first to raise this matter. It went on:
but he wondered whether it was right for Mr. Marriott to be moved to other duties as distinct from being suspended from duty. You explained that the Code required consideration to be given to whether there were other duties available for somebody whose position in their current post was untenable … Moreover, you wished Mr. Marriott to be available to advise the incoming governor (when he was appointed) and to give assistance to the Learmont Inquiry, pending his being allocated to non-operational duties. The Home Secretary pointed out that this would almost inevitably be seen as a fudge, designed to enable Mr. Marriott not to be suspended. The tasks you had mentioned could scarcely be described as another post.
What those minutes show—[Interruption.] For all the bluster of Conservative Members, what the minutes show is that the Secretary of State himself raised the issue of suspension.

Mr. Howard: I was entitled to.

Mr. Straw: The Home Secretary says that he was entitled to. He complained about the decision. The minutes are also entirely consistent with Mr. Lewis's allegation, and that of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, that the Secretary of State told Mr. Lewis that he wanted Mr. Marriott to be suspended.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I shall deal with the point that he is making—which is entirely without substance—in the course of my speech, but I want to put a question to him on an allegation that he made just a few moments ago. It is necessary for me to remind the House of what he was saying because I want to make it quite clear that I am now specifically accusing the hon. Gentleman of misleading the House this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a very senior member of the Government. He must know that he cannot charge another hon. Member across the Dispatch Box with misleading the House. I suggest that he rephrases whatever it is that he wishes to accuse the hon. Gentleman of.

Mr. Howard: I shall certainly rephrase that remark. I accuse the hon. Gentleman of a fundamental inaccuracy

in what he told the House a few minutes ago. He suggested on "Today" yesterday morning that an answer that I gave to the Select Committee indicated that the accounts which I have given of what took place on 10 January were wrong.
The answer that I gave to the Select Committee on that day was an answer that I gave to a question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). My hon. Friend is at present on his sick bed, but he took the trouble to write to the hon. Gentleman yesterday from his sick bed pointing out that the hon. Gentleman had completely misrepresented the nature of his question, and that his question was directed to something entirely different—to general policy matters and not to specific events of 10 January—and he ended his letter with the following words:
I would be grateful if you would use your speech tomorrow to correct the untrue allegation you made this morning. Regrettably I shall not be in the House because I am at home recovering from a recent operation.

Mr. Straw: I have not received the letter—[Interruption.]—and I do not intend to look at a copy now. I certainly do not withdraw the matter—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman on the Back Bench wishes to do gymnastics, I suggest that he does so elsewhere.

Mr. Straw: I have the minutes here, I have looked through them very carefully and I have seen the full transcripts of the Secretary of State's evidence. He moved from the particular to the general and said that there was no need therefore for him to talk to Mr. Lewis about the matters. In one answer after another—we are not just relying on that—the Secretary of State has denied that he sought to interfere in respect of two operational decisions made by Mr. Derek Lewis.
The first operational decision with which the Home Secretary said that he did not interfere was whether Mr. Lewis should, instead of moving Mr. Marriott, suspend him. The second operational decision with which he said that he did not interfere was as to the timing of those decisions. We say that he interfered in both.
Let me return to the minutes. Do the minutes not show beyond any doubt that the Secretary of State did indeed seek to interfere with that decision, that he raised it, that he sought to have Mr. Marriott suspended—and not transferred instead—from his duty? I offer the Secretary of State the opportunity to answer that question. Do the minutes not show beyond any question of doubt that the Secretary of State did indeed raise the matter—that he told Mr. Lewis that he wanted Mr. Marriott suspended and not transferred? The Home Secretary must deal with the matter now. Did he or did he not seek to change Mr. Lewis's mind? Again, the Home Secretary refuses to answer the questions that we have put and to accept the truth of this matter, which is that he sought the suspension of Mr. Marriott—contrary to the statement that he issued, which I draw to his attention again, that he did not tell Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately.
The minutes should corroborate Mr. Lewis's evidence if there is any question of doubt that the Home Secretary did indeed tell Mr. Lewis. If that is not so, will the Secretary of State—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Straw: No, I am not giving way. [Interruption.]

An hon. Member: Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman—whoever it was—would volunteer for the Chairmen's Panel.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is making an important speech and he deserves to be heard. I should be grateful if hon. Members would now stop their tittering and listen to the speech.

Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put it to the Prime Minister on Tuesday that the Home Secretary personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst prison should be suspended immediately. We believe—there is no question because the minutes confirm it, which the Secretary of State has refused to accept until now—that he raised the issue of suspension and told the director general that. If that is not the case, he must explain why he has refused on every occasion to admit that he even raised the issue of suspension.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend said that when Mr. Lewis objected that it was an operational matter, the Home Secretary threatened to instruct him to do it. Does the Secretary of State deny that? Does he deny that he sought advice from his other officials in order to do that and that he gave Mr. Derek Lewis a deadline by which he had to come back and change his mind? The Secretary of State does not deny it.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we issued a statement on Tuesday, which rebutted one by one the unfounded allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday. I deny each and every one of the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition. They were unfounded, wrong and without substance.

Mr. Straw: But the statement issued by the Secretary of State in no sense acted as a complete rebuttal, and he knows it. Does he deny that he sought advice on that?
The third issue is that the Home Secretary told the operational director of the Prison Service by fax that he would announce in the House of Commons that day—and he duly announced it in his statement to the House—that the former governor of Parkhurst prison was to be removed that day. That is true. The Secretary of State—not Mr. Derek Lewis—decided that the governor of Parkhurst prison, Mr. Marriott, should be removed that day.
The question before the House today goes way beyond the employment of one man, the former governor of Parkhurst prison. It goes to the heart of whether this country should be governed by Ministers who are ready to tell the truth, and the whole truth, in the conduct of their high office, and whether they are properly to hold themselves responsible for the decisions in which they are involved. The distinction that the Secretary of State has sought to make between policy thought and the operation of the Prison Service is, in the words of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, "bogus".
The Secretary of State has been involved in operational decisions day by day and month by month. He has evaded his responsibilities to this House. He has not been frank with this House. In our judgment, he must go.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
believes that the Home Secretary is and should be accountable to this House for all matters concerning the Prison Service; believes that he is and should be accountable and responsible for all policy decisions relating to the Service; believes that the Director General of the Prison Service is and should be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the service; and utterly rejects the very serious allegations made about the Home Secretary's conduct towards the former Governor of Parkhurst, Mr. John Marriott.
What we have seen this afternoon and the whole of this week is a cheap and tawdry attempt to make petty party political capital out of the difficulties of the Prison Service. I shall deal in due course, closely and with relish, with each of the allegations put by the Labour party.
On Monday, I made a statement to the House about the independent report by General Sir John Learmont on one of the most wide-ranging reviews of prison security that has ever been conducted. The report followed two of the most serious operational failures in the history of the Prison Service. It is a devastating report, which severely criticises Parkhurst and its management. It says that the security manual of the Prison Service was disregarded at Parkhurst and that the most basic security procedures were not observed. It also makes the most trenchant criticisms of the management of the Prison Service generally and concludes with the following words:
There is an abundance of excellent people within the Prison Service whose most fervent wish is to do a good and worthwhile job. They are yearning to be led to better things. Although much has been done to improve the corporate planning within the Service, this inquiry has starkly illustrated the need to address urgently shortcomings in leadership, operations and security".
I said on Monday that I had to he able to assure the House, and through it the people of this country, that the grave weaknesses in the service that have been disclosed would be put right. General Sir John Learmont said that responsibilities reached prisons board level and that the criticism stopped there. [HON. MEMBERS: "That includes you."] I am not a member of the prisons board.
It was impossible for me to overlook the serious criticisms contained in that report. Of course, I took into account the lengthy submissions that the former director general put to me, which he has now made public, including his criticisms of the independent Learmont report. I had to choose between the view of the former director general and the independent views of General Learmont. I concluded that a change of leadership was required at the top of the Prison Service to address what General Learmont described as
the shortcomings in leadership, operations and security".
So I decided that the director general's appointment should be terminated.
The material on which I made that decision is before the House—the Learmont report is a published document. The shadow Home Secretary, who has made such a fuss over all this, has complete access to that document but does not have a view on that central question. He was


unable to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). That is the smack of firm opposition that we see from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the Labour party.

Dr. John Reid: I think that the Home Secretary can take it that we know that he sacked Mr. Lewis: that is on the record. He has, however, refused to answer specifically the question with which today's motions are concerned. He has refused to answer that question seven times, although he has promised to do so. He can dismiss one of the allegations simply by answering no at the Dispatch Box to the following question. At the meeting on 10 January did he insist that the governor of Parkhurst be removed that very day? Will he answer no, in which case one allegation will be dealt with? Did he insist, that very day, that the governor be removed—yes or no?

Mr. Howard: All the decisions—

Dr. Reid: Yes or no?

Mr. Howard: I did not. The answer is no because all the decisions that were made that day were made by the Director General of the Prison Service.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Home Secretary has said that he had to choose between what Mr. Lewis has said and the Learmont report. Why, therefore, does he ignore paragraph 3.83 of the report, which says:
The Director General also needs minimum political involvement in the day-to-day operation of the Service."?
The paragraph sets out what Sir John Learmont clearly considers to be too much political involvement in the day-to-day running of the service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot accept one part of the report but ignore that paragraph.

Mr. Howard: The report goes on to indicate that it is for the director general to balance the various parts of his responsibilities and effectively to find a way of responding to reasonable ministerial requests and of dealing with operational matters. I shall refer to that function in some detail during the course of my speech, so I urge the right hon. Gentleman to restrain himself and to have a little patience.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howard: I must make some progress, but I will give way in due course.
As to the question of accountability and my personal responsibilities as Home Secretary, my position, and that of all previous Home Secretaries, is perfectly consistent and clear. I am personally accountable to the House for all matters concerning the Prison Service. I am accountable and responsible for all policy decisions relating to the service. The director general is responsible for day-to-day operations.
That distinction between policy and operations is—

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Howard: Yes, I will.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. When I wrote to him in July, putting it to him that the

policy of securing women prisoners in handcuffs or chains—for example when visiting their children or attending for medical treatment outside prison—was degrading and shaming, neither he nor any Minister replied to me. Eventually I received a reply from Mr. Richard Tilt, who was then director of security in the Prison Service. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really consider that keeping women prisoners in chains is not a matter of policy but merely an operational matter to be determined at discretion by staff in the Prison Service? If he means what he says about his accountability to Parliament, will he now accept that he, as Home Secretary, should personally have replied to me as a Member of Parliament about this?

Mr. Howard: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. I will deal with it in some detail, which will take a little time, because it will demonstrate to the whole world the quality of judgment of the latest recruit to the Labour party.
The hon. Gentleman made that accusation first when he appeared on "Breakfast with Frost". He said that he had written to me about what he described as the degrading practice of keeping women prisoners in chains. I was somewhat taken aback by his allegations, so I caused inquiries to be made. I discovered that up until April this year the escape rate of women prisoners under escort, being taken from one prison to another or from prison to court, was twice that of male prisoners. As an operational matter, the Prison Service looked into it to see what differences there were between the way in which women prisoners and male prisoners were escorted. It discovered that male prisoners were handcuffed while under escort, not put in chains, and women prisoners were not. So the Prison Service itself decided, as an operational matter, and without reference to me, that, after April, in order to reduce the escape rate women prisoners would be handcuffed while under escort. That is the step it took and that is what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), the newest recruit to the Labour party, describes as keeping women prisoners in chains. That is the nature of his judgment. That change was made by the Prison Service in April and I am happy to tell the House that as a result the escape rate of women prisoners has substantially been reduced.

Mr. Howarth: Mr. Tilt's letter makes it clear that in certain circumstances women prisoners are secured in chains.

Mr. Howard: I have given the hon. Gentleman and the House the full explanation that I received when I caused inquiries to be made into the hon. Gentleman's question. I would be interested to know—perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us—whether it is the policy of the Labour party that the escape rate should be increased. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn, who is so keen to establish his party's credentials on law and order, will tell us that he would countermand that operational decision of the Prison Service. He would say, "No. We can't have these women prisoners handcuffed while they are being taken from one prison to another." Would the hon. Gentleman like to respond?

Mr. Straw: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howard: The distinction to which I referred, before I was so happily interrupted by the hon. Member


for Stratford-on-Avon, between policy and operations is nothing new. During my statement on Sir John Woodcock's inquiry on 19 December 1994, I reminded the House of what my noble Friend, Lord Prior, had said following the escape of a number of terrorist prisoners from the Maze prison in Northern Ireland. He said:
If I had felt that ministerial responsibility was such that in this case I should have resigned, I certainly should have done so. It would be a matter for resignation if the … inquiry showed that what happened was the result of some act of policy that was my responsibility, or that I failed to implement something that I had been asked to implement, or should have implemented. In that case, I should resign."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 23–4.]
The distinction between policy and operations is also reflected in the framework document that established the Prison Service as an executive agency. It says that the Director General of the Prison Service is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Prison Service. It also says that the director general is accountable directly to me for the Prison Service's performance and operations, and that, although the Home Secretary will not normally become involved in the day-to-day management of the Prison Service, he will expect to be consulted on the handling of operational matters that could give rise to grave public or parliamentary concern. I do not imagine that any hon. Member would argue that the Parkhurst escape was not in that category.
When I received Sir John's report, I studied it very carefully. If the criticisms in it had been made of me, I should not be standing at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the two questions that arose out of the questions that I posed to him in January before the Select Committee on Home Affairs? There is a complete difference between the evidence of the Home Secretary as to what happened and what Mr. Lewis is saying. They cannot both be right. Would he release Philippa Drew, Marriott and all the other civil servants from their duty of confidentiality so that the whole story can be known? We can then know where the truth really lies.

Mr. Howard: Since neither of the people concerned was at the meeting that is the subject, apparently, of this great dispute, it is laughable to suggest that their evidence could help to resolve it.
I now turn specifically and directly to the many inconsistent and unfounded allegations that have been made this week about my conduct. Many people will think it extraordinary that, the day after the publication of such a devastating report on the security of our prisons, the Leader of the Opposition chose to concentrate, not on security, not on escapes, but on allegations about the treatment of the former governor of Parkhurst.
Let me remind the House of what General Learmont said about Parkhurst under Mr. Marriott's governorship. I shall use only a few examples. Hon. Members will find many more, if they need them, in paragraphs 2.56, 2.124, 2.062, 2.07 and 2.08. General Learmont had quite a lot to say about Mr. Marriott's regime. In paragraph 2.256 he says that Mr. Marriott decided not to undertake rub-down searches. In paragraph 2.124 he says that Parkhurst

ignored an instruction that the duty governor should be in the prison when it was unlocked and when category A inmates were associating with others.
In paragraph 2.228 General Learmont says that there was
a lack of visible leadership on the Wings and elsewhere at Parkhurst.
In paragraph 2.261, he pinpoints a
multitude of security lapses and unacceptable practices
and concludes that there was
little to commend in the way things were done".
Those are the words of a man whose independent assessment is beyond doubt.
Given those stringent and damning criticisms, I find it hard to understand how anyone could question the decision to remove Mr. Marriott from his duties at Parkhurst without delay, or to suggest that he has been used as a scapegoat. That is the man on whose behalf the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to take up the cudgels.
The opinion of the former director general about that was perfectly clear.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I am not giving way at the moment.
As the former director general stated to the Home Affairs Select Committee during his appearance on 18 January:
it was essential for operational reasons that the change in governor took place immediately so that there was no distraction or confusion and there was clarity as to who was in charge.
The former director general was asked by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is a member of the Select Committee, whether I had forced the director general to remove Marriott that day. When asked by the hon. Gentleman:
Did the Home Secretary tell you to make sure Mr. Marriott was off the premises by the afternoon?
the former director general replied, "No he did not." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Those are not my words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the words of the former director general.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Mr. Lewis says that he was given a deadline by the right hon. and learned Gentleman by which to agree to the removal of Mr. Marriott, after which he would be overruled. Is that true?

Mr. Howard: There was no question of overruling the director general. He made the decisions that were made on that day.
I now come to the events of 10 January, which so utterly fascinate the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Blackburn. To clarify matters, I am taking the exceptional step of releasing the official note of the discussions that took place that morning. I have placed a copy in the Library.
We met that day so that the former director general could advise me of the preliminary conclusions reached by Mr. Richard Tilt, who was then director of security and who had undertaken an urgent review of the escapes from Parkhurst, and to discuss my statement to the House.
Mr. Lewis began by explaining that, in the light of the Tilt inquiry, he proposed to move the governor to other duties, pending the outcome of the disciplinary investigation. I asked why that action was being taken. Mr. Lewis explained that there were several grounds.
It appeared that the governor had condoned, and possibly approved, the absence of a duty governor during the time that the prison was unlocked; he appeared not to be aware of the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the emergency control room, for which he had to bear a substantial, if not the main, responsibility; and there was confusion about whether he had fully implemented the recommendations made following Judge Tumim's inspection of the prison, on which assurances had been given to the director general and to Ministers.
The note goes on to record that I considered those to be serious charges and that I agreed with Mr. Lewis's analysis that Mr. Marriott could not stay as governor of Parkhurst. I asked, as I was perfectly entitled to, if it was right for him to be moved to other duties as distinct from being suspended from duty. Mr. Lewis explained why he thought that that would not be appropriate, and reaffirmed his decision not to suspend Mr. Marriott but to move him to another job elsewhere in the Prison Service.
I was entitled to be consulted by Mr. Lewis about that important matter, and I was. I was entitled to discuss the action that it was proposed to take, and I did. I was not entitled to give instructions: I did not. It was the director general who decided that the governor should be moved: he was.
The note that I have described, and which I have placed in the Library today, was addressed to Mr. Lewis. He had every opportunity to question, challenge or correct it; he did not do so. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that he accepted it as a fair record of the meeting.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. The minute, however, goes on to say that which the Home Secretary did not read out:
The Home Secretary pointed out that this
decision to move but not to suspend Mr. Marriott
would almost inevitably be seen as a fudge, designed to enable Mr. Marriott not to be suspended.
Is not the truth of the matter that the Home Secretary disagreed with the decision of Mr. Lewis to move but not to suspend Mr. Marriott and that he sought to tell Mr. Lewis that Mr. Marriott should indeed be suspended, and is not that entirely consistent with those minutes?

Mr. Howard: I was entitled to be consulted, as I have repeatedly said, and I was. I was entitled, in the course of that consultation, to explore alternatives, as I did. But the decision was for the director general. He made it. He has made that clear time after time.

Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State now explain—which is admitted by the minute because it goes on to speak about later discussions—why Mr. Lewis left the meeting, albeit while it was still going on? Is it not a fact that he left the meeting to consider the deadline that the Secretary of State had set him to reconsider his decision?

Mr. Howard: I have no idea, at this distance in time, why he left the meeting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]—but of course it is true that there was a deadline. I was making a statement to the House. There was nothing sinister about that. I had a duty to account to the House for what had

happened. I took that duty seriously and, if I was to discharge that duty, it obviously had to be agreed what was going to be done in relation to Parkhurst.

Mr. Andrew Miller: May I press the Home Secretary further on that point? He is obviously a very busy man. He cannot even bother to respond to a letter from me dated 29 August on a very serious issue, about why he has applied for public interest immunity certificates—but that is another matter.
On this case, will the Home Secretary think back, and ask himself, why did that adjournment take place? Why did it go on for so long? If he is so busy, in this difficult time that he is experiencing, why did he allow that adjournment to go on for so long? Is it not the case that he set a deadline?

Mr. Howard: I have just told the House that I had to make a statement to the House that afternoon, so of course there had to be a deadline by which it was agreed what would happen at Parkhurst and what I would say in my statement. Anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with government will know that, if one is to make a statement to the House, there comes a time when one has to agree what is to be contained in it. It is not an astonishingly difficult proposition, even for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to grasp.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Blackburn.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State, whose—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have all heard a dreadful speech from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Three times in the past two minutes, he has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions. Is not it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his own questions rather than have to put up a stooge to do it for him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Howard: For the avoidance of doubt, may I—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that this is not an addition to the ruling that I have just given.

Mr. Howard: I would not dream of doing that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
For the avoidance of doubt, may I make it perfectly plain that I would be delighted to give way to the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Straw: The question—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) was registered handicapped. I should be grateful if he would give his good arm a rest.

Mr. Straw: I shall ask the Secretary of State the question that he refused three times to answer during the course of my speech: did he insert the word "today" in that statement against the advice of Mr. Lewis? May we at long last have a straight answer to that?

Mr. Howard: I shall answer that question, but I want to go through the events of the day.
I have given the House the evidence that the former director general put to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 18 January. In an interview on 15 January, Mr. Lewis was asked by Sir David Frost whose idea it was to remove Mr. Marriott from his post of governor of Parkhurst. Mr. Lewis replied:
That was entirely a decision that was taken for operational reasons within the Prison Service by me and by other members of the line management team".
When asked by Sir David Frost whether he had discussed the matter with me, Mr. Lewis replied:
Of course I briefed him on it, yes. But it was an operational decision taken within the Prison Service.
Those are not my words, but the words of the former director general.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on the question of duty of confidentiality, the Home Secretary said that the two civil servants referred to were not at the meeting. As it is believed by many that those two civil servants, if released from their duty of confidentiality, would enable us to know exactly what happened, will the Home Secretary release them now? If he is not prepared to release them, will he explain why he is rejecting that as a proposition? Will he release them?

Mr. Howard: That is absolutely laughable. I have repeatedly made it clear that the two civil servants to whom the hon. Gentleman referred were not at the meeting, the minutes of which I have in my hand and are the detailed official account. Those minutes have been placed in the Library and were sent to Mr. Lewis, who had every opportunity to correct them. I am doing my best to give the House a full account and for that reason I have taken the very unusual step of putting the minutes in the Library.
The hon. Member for Blackburn asked whether I inserted a word in the form of words I used in the House. I did not produce the form of words that I used in the House. It was produced not by me, but by someone else at the meeting; it was agreed by me and the director general. Of course, as I have said more than once, and as the former director general has said more than once, the decision that was taken was taken by him.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I have given way already.
Yesterday, the former director general issued a writ that made a number of allegations about my level of involvement with the Prison Service. I utterly and completely reject each and every one of those allegations. I have already dealt with the ones relating to the former governor of Parkhurst. The others either relate to discussions on matters on which I was entitled to be consulted under the framework document or were policy proposals for me to decide. Some of them were staffing matters that were outside the scope of the director general's authority. It has been suggested that the then director general was required to attend, on average, one meeting every day with me and others. Our records show that he attended, on average, about one meeting with me a week.
Let me give a little more detail of what we are discussing. I shall first take the allegation in the former director general's writ about the appointment of a new personnel director, which he says I delayed. That was not a decision for the director general to take. His proposal was that the individual to be appointed as personnel director of the Prison Service should be paid a salary of £100,000 a year plus a 20 per cent. performance bonus. I thought that that was excessive and I make no apology for becoming involved in proposals like that.
The next allegation contained in the writ was that I refused to allow the Prison Service to proceed with a decision to reduce the number of prisons holding category A prisoners. After the Parkhurst escape, that issue was clearly a matter of grave concern. The then director general's proposals were submitted to me on 18 July. I knew then that I was going to receive General Learmont's report within a matter of weeks. It would have been completely wrong to pre-empt his conclusions. The recommendation on the subject in General Learmont's independent report differs significantly from the proposal put to me by the then director general. I was right to wait to have the benefit of General Learmont's independent assessment.
It has been alleged that I failed to provide sufficient resources to implement the Woodcock report. I was advised by the former director general just a few days ago that we are making good progress on implementing the Woodcock recommendations in accordance with the timetable that I have laid before the House.
On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition made three allegations: that I personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately; that when Mr. Lewis objected as it was an operational matter, I threatened to instruct him to do it; that when Mr. Lewis further objected, I told the operational director of the Prison Service, by fax, that I would announce it in the House of Commons that day. Each and every one of the allegations is untrue. I have rebutted them all. Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the hon. Member for Blackburn has made any serious attempt to contradict that rebuttal. The allegations are untrue.

Mr. Tony Blair: Let us deal with each allegation in turn. The first is that the Home Secretary told the director general that he wanted the governor suspended. That is clear from the minutes—the Home Secretary raised it; it is absolutely clear from the minutes. The second is that the Home Secretary threatened to instruct Mr. Lewis. That is clear from the adjournment of the meeting, when he was asked, as has been admitted, to come back and answer. The third is that it was the Home Secretary who said that it had to be done immediately. The Home Secretary has totally failed on every occasion to answer that. Let me put two questions to him: first, was the idea that he should be removed that day—[Interruption.]

Mr. David Shaw: Where is it in the minutes? Where is it in the minutes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is being excessive—one question is enough.

Mr. Blair: First, is it true that the suggestion that the governor be removed that day came not from the director general, but from the Home Secretary? Secondly, why


does not the Home Secretary allow those who received the instruction—Miss Philippa Drew and Mr. Marriott—to give evidence on what they were told by the Home Office and allow the civil servants at the meeting of 10 January to give evidence?

Mr. Howard: I am bound to say that that intervention by the Leader of the Opposition casts the most serious questions on his judgment. I believe that it is an intervention that he will come to regret. It is most significant that, before the right hon. Gentleman got to his feet, I was making a detailed rebuttal of the three allegations that he made in the House on Tuesday. When he got to his feet today he did not seek to sustain or substantiate those allegations; he asked three completely different questions, unrelated to the allegations, which I have answered already in the course of this afternoon's debate. If there were any evidence required that the Labour party is unfit to govern, we have seen it in the actions of the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon.

Mr. Blair: This is the seventh time that the Home Secretary has been asked this question: did the suggestion that the governor be removed that day come from the Home Secretary rather than Mr. Lewis—yes or no?

Mr. Howard: Here we go again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will come to that point. Throughout this week, the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the same pattern of conduct: he makes some allegations and they are rebutted so he abandons them and makes some fresh allegations, only to abandon them too.
Let me make it perfectly clear: I was entitled to be consulted, I was consulted and I expressed my view. I did not insert the word "today" in the statement that was made and we have the director general's word that he took the view that, for operational reasons, it was necessary to remove the governor immediately.
I shall now deal with the allegations that the hon. Member for Blackburn made yesterday. I had intended to begin with what he told The Guardian, but we are told that that is inoperative: there was a misprint in The Guardian, so we do not need to worry about those comments. The hon. Gentleman was quoted in The Guardian as saying that John Marriott was moved against the advice of Derek Lewis and that I had intimidated Mr. Lewis into taking that action. He said:
Not only had Mr. Howard talked about it but he intimidated Mr. Lewis into doing it".
A few hours later the hon. Gentleman popped up on the "Today" programme. He said:
Let me make this clear. What actually happened to Mr. Marriott was that he was transferred, that was an administrative matter. And that decision was certainly made by Mr. Lewis, not by Mr. Howard".
At last he was quite correct. However, those two statements—like most of the things that the hon. Gentleman says—were completely at odds with each other.
The problems in our prisons are deep-rooted and hon. Members will differ as to how they should be dealt with. I am clear about my prescription: I have always believed that prisoners should he treated decently and that every effort should be made, through work and training, to rehabilitate them. But I have no doubt that the good intentions of the reformers have been corrupted over the years.
Decency has become an excuse for pampering, laxity and even for licence. Ever since I became Home Secretary I have been determined to change that. I have been accused of intervening—yes, I have intervened and I make no apologies for that. I intervened to cut home leave by 50 per cent. and as a direct result home leave failures have fallen by 80 per cent. I intervened to cut drug abuse in our prisons and we are now seeing the introduction of mandatory drug testing. I also intervened to introduce a system of rewards for good behaviour and sanctions for bad behaviour in order to help prison governors maintain good order in their prisons.
I never forget—as many Labour Members seem to—that people are in prison because they have committed crimes, often serious crimes. They should not expect luxury, unearned privileges, or endless excursions back into the community against which they have offended. They should expect firm management, they should expect to be punished for bad behaviour and they should expect to have to earn any privileges that they receive. Those are my policies for our prisons and I believe that they command widespread support. As General Learmont said in his report:
There is an abundance of excellent people within the Prison Service whose most fervent wish is to do a good and worthwhile job.
Our task is to encourage and enable them to do so. That fact is wholly ignored by the motion that the Opposition have invited the House to debate this afternoon.
I have comprehensively rebutted the various allegations made against me this week. They have been shown to have no substance, but that is far from the end of the matter. The conduct of the Leader of the Opposition has given rise to fundamental questions about his judgment. On Tuesday, and again today, he demeaned his office by allowing it to be used as a vehicle for the spleen of a bitter man. He has shown himself to be utterly unfit for office and he and his sidekick, the hon. Member for Blackburn, have shown themselves to be utterly unfit for government. I invite the House to reject them and their motion with the utter contempt they deserve.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Speeches are now restricted to 10 minutes.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Home Secretary has painted a picture of fearful errors in the Prison Service, which he claims to have put right. Every error that he described occurred under his jurisdiction and that of former Conservative Home Secretaries. Therefore, he is saying that conditions were appalling under the Conservative Government but that he has now ameliorated them. He confirms entirely the recent remarks of Judge Tumim, who said:
If you are dividing policy and operations it means the Home Secretary is not responsible for anything at all.
That means the Home Secretary takes credit"—
as he sought to do in his speech today—
but is free of responsibility. I'm saying it's a bogus distinction".
The issue this afternoon is not the trivial one concerning whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is fit to hold the office that he demeans; the issue is whether the House of Commons has authority in matters relating to the Prison Service.
The Government are undermining the House of Commons by seeking to mislead it over crucial matters, such as the Westland issue. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is present in the Chamber. His letter was misused by Sir Bernard Ingham in order to deceive the House of Commons. The Government sought to mislead the House of Commons over the conspiracy to break their own embargo on selling armaments to Iraq. The Government are now using the next steps agencies to destroy any system of parliamentary accountability based upon the totally bogus argument—which was controverted by Judge Tumim—that there is a difference between accountability and responsibility. On Monday, the Home Secretary said:
It is essential, if I am to be properly accountable to this House and to the country, that I am properly and fully informed about what happens in our prisons".—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 35.]
On 10 January, when making his statement about Parkhurst, the Home Secretary said:
I am accountable to Parliament for all matters that are relevant to the Prison Service. I am responsible to Parliament for policy".
This afternoon, the Home Secretary again sought to draw a distinction between accountability and responsibility. It is about time he told the House of Commons the difference between accountability and responsibility. If one looks up the word "accountable" in the Oxford English Dictionary, one finds that it means liable to be called to account and responsible to or for. If one looks up the word "responsible" in the Oxford English Dictionary, one finds that it means answerable, accountable and liable to be called to account.
The Home Secretary is twisting words to avoid the fact that he ought to be held to account for the mess that he made in the prisons. What is more, he completely accepts the responsibility because it was he, not my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who said that Mr. Derek Lewis was the man to deal with all the dreadful things that he claimed were going on in the Prison Service. When I said that Mr. Derek Lewis should be sacked and that he was not fit to run a fish and chip shop—I received many hostile letters from people who ran fish and chip shops—the Home Secretary said:
Since the director general became head of the agency, a great deal of progress has been made, not least in reducing the number of escapes".
He said it again this afternoon in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). Apparently, Mr. Lewis achieved the miracle about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman boasts. The Home Secretary said:
a great deal of progress has been made, not least in reducing the number of escapes, which has fallen by about a third during his period of office … The Prison Service is clearly going through a difficult time. The director general is the best person to take it through that difficult time."—[Official Report, 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 39–40.]
He was talking about Parkhurst—the very matter on which he has sacked the director general.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is simply playing with words. What he is doing was quoted in "Alice in Wonderland" when the March Hare said to Alice,
Then you should say what you mean,

and Alice replied,
I do … at least I mean what I say—that's the same thing, you know.
We are not dealing with words; we are not dealing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman twisting words to wriggle out of a situation for which he is responsible. We are dealing with the fact that the House of Commons has the right to call the right hon. and learned Gentleman to account. What we heard this afternoon was a shyster lawyer defending a shifty client with the Home Secretary being the shyster lawyer and the shifty client. What we have here is a system of scapegoats.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If he was referring to the Home Secretary as a shyster lawyer—

Mr. John Home Robertson: Spot on!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the word "shyster" and think of something that he felt was appropriate.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall simply allow you to overrule me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and apologise to you.
The Government created the Child Support Agency and a mess was made of that, so the chief executive went. They created the Prison Service and, when a mess was made there, they got rid of the governor of Parkhurst. They received a report showing that that was not enough, so now they have got rid of the Director General of the Prison Service. The rule of the Home Secretary is, "The buck stops anywhere but with me." That is what the Government are doing.
Last week, at the Conservative party conference, Minister after Minister said that Britain would not stand for parliamentary sovereignty being destroyed by Brussels. The sovereignty of the House of Commons is not being destroyed in Brussels; it is being destroyed in Whitehall, in the Home Office and at 10 Downing street. The Government will not accept responsibility to Parliament, but the day is coming when, even if they can get a complaisant, biddable majority in the House of Commons at the end of the debate, there will soon be a majority in the country who are not complaisant and biddable and who will throw that lot out.

Sir Peter Lloyd: The Opposition are making an oddly muddled attack on the Home Secretary. Not so very long ago, they were complaining that the Government were washing their hands of the Prison Service and leaving everything to the agency. Over the past few days, the charge has been that the Home Secretary is a compulsive meddler, constantly taking an interest in prisons when he should be confining himself to accepting responsibility when things go wrong.
Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, the agency has not altered the accountability of Home Secretaries from what it was in practice when the constitutional fiction was that Home Secretaries knew everything and did everything in their Department. In practice, when Labour Home Secretaries were embarrassed by notorious escapes, like Conservative ones, they set up inquiries and sought to learn lessons. However, despite the theory, it was always


accepted that if escapes or other failures did not flow from ministerial orders or dereliction, there was no question of the Home Secretary assuming personal blame.
We now have the Learmont report, which deals thoroughly with the Parkhurst escapes. It was plain that they were the result of a gross failure of security at the prison. Proper rules and procedures were not followed. Obviously, the Home Secretary has no responsibility there, in the sense of personal blame for what went wrong. The position is exactly what it was under Home Secretaries before agency status.
The agency was set up to provide more freedom and scope for managers to manage effectively within the policies laid down by Ministers. The fiction that Ministers did everything or proved everything had stultified initiative and encouraged lethargy.

Mr. John Gunnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Lloyd: I shall not give way as I have quite a lot to say in a short time.
To put it mildly, it is not an easy relationship to manage, but, with all the difficulties, it is a huge improvement on what existed before, as the progress made in running prisons since the agency was set up demonstrates.
The second assault on the Home Secretary was the charge that he had misled the House over the removal of the governor. It seems to me that he comprehensively rebutted that in his speech this afternoon. In any case, of course it would have been perfectly proper if, on a matter of great importance and public interest, he had intervened and overridden the director general, had he found it necessary. The agency framework document makes that clear.
The catalogue of management and security lapses at Parkhurst that the Learmont report chronicles meant that the governor rightly lost his post. That is hard for a man who has real qualities—as the governor does—who had contributed much to the service and who had many extraneous problems, not least that the prison was being rebuilt around him, but the security manual simply was not being followed and the escapes occurred.
I take issue with the Home Secretary's conclusion that the Learmont report made the director general's position untenable. The report is thorough, detailed and convincing in respect of the escape itself. There it carries conviction and authority, but it reads quite differently when it deals with wider issues involving the Prison Service and its management.
In his statement earlier this week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary quoted the report, where it said:
alarm bells should have been … ringing throughout the Prison Service
because of Whitemoor, implying that they were not. Yet, later on, Learmont remarked approvingly of the system of security audits which started just before Parkhurst as the only thorough way of making sure that proper levels of security were maintained at all 130-plus establishments. Faxes and exhortations would not do; they would merely create more paper.
The report complained about the amount of paper that governors had to deal with, distracting them from more important concerns, and gave the impression that it was

all from an over-bureaucratic, badly run head office, when, as it grudgingly admitted some time later, the prison headquarters had explained that only a small part of that paper came from headquarters, the bulk being generated elsewhere by the basic task of running prisons, receiving and transferring prisoners, answering parliamentary questions and a series of other day-to-day demands.
The report was unhappy that there were as yet no key performance indicators on drugs, but for such indicators to be worth anything, they must be accurate. Until Parliament made possible drug testing in prisons, the machinery could not be established to acquire the necessary figures. The report criticised the decision to rebuild Parkhurst by stages, while it held prisoners—as if the agency board were responsible. That decision was taken and work started long before the agency was established.
The report commented on security, and obviously its authors did not see it as their task, as they threw out the interesting general ideas—many sounding like those which I knew well and which were well known to the prisons board, which is presumably where they came from—to examine the state of the service when the agency took over, assess what could realistically have been achieved in the two and a half years since or identify what has been achieved in that time. As it was a report on security, it might have made more of the fact that, despite Whitemoor and Parkhurst, prison escapes have fallen by three quarters since the agency came into being.
I feel bound to stress those points, but there are many others. I read the report only once, but I marked and docketed a great number of other points. I was the Minister responsible for prisons when the agency was established and I worked with Derek Lewis and the board during their first year. They were set a tough job—to turn around what I know to be an ill-managed service. Clearly, that could not be done overnight. That would take years to do properly. As the Home Secretary said, the problems were deep-rooted. But the service was being turned around systematically and effectively—the only way that it could be turned around. The fact that the service consistently reached the Home Secretary's targets shows that.
I realise that the Home Secretary had a difficult decision to make. He is usually admirable in refusing to be guided by reports that are insufficiently cogently argued to the point in question. I am sorry that he did not show that same characteristic here. I believe that, to achieve the kind of efficient Prison Service that this country deserves, the Home Secretary should have backed the director general and his board.

Mr. A. J. Beith: At times, this debate seems far removed from the harsh world that prison officers have to face—the prison officers to whom we give a task that few of us would like to undertake, of confronting and dealing with some of the most dangerous people in society, who are contemptuous of authority, scheming, and extremely difficult to organise and control.
Sir John Learmont commented in his report that the catalogue of things that went wrong is not confined to the two prisons on which he was concentrating, but is symptomatic of wider problems in the Prison Service.


There is a combination of the tremendous and courageous work done by prison officers, and serious failings in the way that the whole service has been conducted and some of its work undertaken.
The matter goes much wider than the issues on which part of the debate has concentrated. I like to believe that, if the Home Secretary had been shown specifically and in terms to have misled the House and the Select Committee, there would be no question but that he would resign. He believes that he did not mislead the House or the Committee on the specific matter of the time at which the governor of Parkhurst left. Obviously, Conservative Members have been convinced by his explanation. I say that is not the end of the story. Perhaps the most important issue is the attempt to draw a distinction between policy and operations, and to base on that distinction the belief that the Home Secretary cannot be held to account and be required to resign because of things that have gone wrong in the service.
The Minister of State provided us with a good illustration of the distinction between policy and operations at Question Time this afternoon. He said that criminal investigations are an operational matter for the chief constable. The Home Secretary understands. He would not seek to instruct the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis—who is answerable to the Home Secretary in other respects—as to how he should investigate a particular crime. The Secretary of State knows that, and his officials would advise him accordingly.
There is no such clarity in the distinction between operations and policy in the running of the Prison Service. The Home Secretary's answers and assertions this afternoon made it clear that he recognises no such distinction. He knows that some operational issues are extremely important, politically and in terms of public concern about prisons.
The Woodcock report—the original inquiry into the Whitemoor escape—made this clear:
There exists at all levels within the Service some confusion as to the respective roles of Ministers, the Agency Headquarters and individual Prison Governors. In particular, the Enquiry has identified the difficulty of determining what is an operational matter and what is policy, leading to confusion as to where responsibility lies.
The Home Secretary already has on his desk an authoritative report telling him that he cannot rely on such a distinction.
It is clear that the Home Secretary has frequently intervened in operational matters, for what he regards as compelling reasons—sometimes involving matters for which he has to answer to the House. There is also considerable pressure on decisions in which the Home Secretary has not intervened directly—the extent of the process of consultation, the questioning, the preparation of lines from which to defend decisions.
All that leads to a situation in which everybody in the Prison Service knows that they must refer upwards all the time. There is a feeling, inherited from old Home Office days, that, "You must watch the Minister's back all the time. If the Minister thinks that something should be done in a particular way, even if he does not tell you to do it that way, you had better take some notice." That contributes to an atmosphere of involvement and intervention.
The massive extent of ministerial involvement in the work of the director general and of those under him is detailed in the Learmont report. The Home Secretary cannot deny that it criticised the relationship between Ministers and the service. This week, he has sought to pretend that the report offers no criticism of Ministers. It does, and he ought to heed it carefully.
Frequent policy interventions by Ministers in a wide range of matters have a direct impact on the service's operational efficiency—by their sheer number and extent, if nothing else. If the service is constantly required to make changes, attention is diverted from security matters. The Everthorpe inquiry found that a substantial proportion of management time had, in the months prior to that incident, been directed at the establishment's inclusion in the market testing bid procedure. That caused uncertainty among staff and prisoners, and adversely affected staff morale. The extent of policy initiatives has a policy impact.
The Minister said that he was proud to intervene. We do not agree with all his policy initiatives, but we understand the political pressures that led the Minister with responsibility for prisons to intervene. However, he cannot then say that there is a clear distinction between policy and operations, and that he is responsible to the House only for policy.
That is why the Government amendment is so wrong and dangerous. It states that the Home Secretary is
accountable to this House for all matters concerning the Prison Service; believes that he is and should be accountable and responsible for all policy decisions".
The amendment seeks to draw a distinction where there is no real difference. It invents a dangerous constitutional doctrine to save the Secretary of State's skin. Even Conservative Members who have a higher opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's stewardship as Home Secretary than I have will come to regret that they trooped through the Lobby in defence of the idea that there was a difference between matters for which the Home Secretary is responsible and those for which he is accountable.
Under another Minister or Government some day, Conservative Members will regret having changed the British constitution so that Ministers are no longer held responsible for matters in which they act, intervene or have considerable influence.

Mr. Gunnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I must not, because there is considerable pressure on time.
Meanwhile, fundamental weaknesses in the Prison Service will harm its work and effectiveness, because the problem of control will remain unchanged.
After the debate, the problems involving Ministers and the service will remain unchanged. There will not be more effective definition. No one in the Prison Service will say tomorrow, "Now we know precisely where our responsibility lies. We know that the Home Secretary will not interfere in this area. We know now that we are in a Howard-free zone, and that we can exercise responsibility." No one in the Prison Service will respond in that way. The same old muddle and confusion will continue. No one in the service will know on what matter the Home Secretary will intervene.
We shall be leaving the Prison Service in the hands of a Minister who wants to increase the prison population by up to 25 per cent. That has been made clear by the various


measures that he has announced. The increased population will inevitably lead to greater damage to prison security. That is because it will mean more appeasement of the most troublesome inmates. The more overcrowded and overstressed a prison is, the more there is appeasement. That prevents the implementation of proper security.
We shall be leaving an overstretched Prison Service in the hands of a Minister who is always ready to pick up the phone, to issue a memo or to send a fax to the Prison Service. Unfortunately, he is never willing to carry the can for what he has done. We face a fundamental and dangerous change in the British constitution that will do no good to the effective running of the prisons, on which we depend.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Most of the comments of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would provide an interesting debate for another day. In fact, the debate is about the survival of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. We have been told that many groups throughout the country are opposed to him. A sacked director general with a record of achievement in all other areas of the Prison Service will, of course, be bitter. A union leader of a sacked director general would not, in those circumstances, be worthy of membership if he or she did not fight for him. A prison governor who is fed up with having a quiet, cosy life disturbed by relentless changes will want to get rid of his tormentor.
The Labour party, facing a Government who have secured the largest fall in crime this century will, of course, be desperate to get rid of them before their success helps to win them the next general election. The media, of course, like whipping up a good row. They like "good" news that is lively and highly visible on television.
However, anyone who takes a reasonable, open-minded and objective view will think that it is too ridiculous for words that a Home Secretary should not be allowed to sack a prison chief who is responsible for two appallingly serious prison breaks and a devastating catalogue of security failures and inefficiency in the Prison Service. That was the simple issue: should Lewis have gone?
When the respected independent investigator and his assessors were asked to attach blame wherever it fell, and as high as it fell, they came to the conclusion that it rested with the prison board and its director. If my right hon. and learned Friend had left the director general in place, he surely would have been accused of a dereliction of duty by Opposition Members and the public. After all, the public are entitled to be protected against prisoners who escape with Semtex.
All else of this matter is secondary, a red herring or diversionary nonsense. Labour Members have revealed themselves at their most absurd. Let us take account of the issues that they have raised. They tell us that the Home Secretary should go as well. However, the Learmont report points no finger at the Home Secretary, although my right hon. and learned Friend invited him to do so. The report points no blame at him. Of course there is no need for my right hon. and learned Friend to go.
The Labour party says that my right hon. and learned Friend became involved in operational matters, and so should take the blame. The Learmont inquiry was not

concerned about the distinction between operational matters and policy matters. Instead, it was asked to consider who was to blame.

Mr. Gunnell: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sorry, but I do not have time to do that. I have only 10 minutes.
The Learmont inquiry responded by saying that Lewis was to blame, and that my right hon. and learned Friend was not. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend is ill advised to proceed so strongly on the distinction between operation and policy, but under the Prison Service framework document he is entitled to be involved. He must be kept informed of what is going on, so that he can answer questions in the House. Sadly, from time to time he must be involved in the minutiae of day-to-day operations to stop the wastage of public money.
That is all a thousand miles away from being directly and personally responsible for the failure to search visitors to prisons to ascertain whether they have Semtex, the failure to search cells, and the failure to ensure that governors are in place when they should be.
My right hon. and learned Friend is not responsible for the failure to stop prisoners doing whatever it was that they wanted to do. He is not responsible for a lack of leadership, or a failure to hear the alarm bell ringing. That is the indictment framed by Sir John Learmont, as set out in the report. The reasons for the appalling escapes are about a million miles away from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who, unlike the director general, who is concerned only with the Prison Service, is responsible for the security service, law and order, the immigration service, the fire service and much else. It is nonsense to say that the Home Secretary should shoulder the blame.
The Opposition say that my right hon. and learned Friend made the operational decision to move the Parkhurst governor. He has consistently said no. The Labour party said yes on Monday. Unfortunately, it forgot the proceedings during the meeting of 10 January, the transcript of which is now in the Library. It forgot what Lewis said on 15 January on "The Frost Programme". It forgot also what he said on 18 January before the Select Committee on Home Affairs. He settled the matter once and for all on "Newsnight" on 16 October. That was the end of the Labour party's absurd allegation.
So the Labour party changed tack, and said, "But Lewis was under pressure to say what he did." Unfortunately for Labour, Lewis said before the Select Committee on 18 January that he was under no pressure, and took the decision himself because it was operational. In marches the First Division Association, Liz Symons being its general secretary. It asserted that poor Mr. Lewis had to say what he did because a civil service directive told him to do so. It seems to have stated that Mr. Lewis had to obey instructions, even if that meant lying to the Select Committee.
No one has produced such a document. Why is that? The answer, of course, is that no such document exists. If such a document existed, and if it required a highly placed civil servant to lie to a Select Committee, why did Lewis lie three days earlier on "The Frost Programme", when he was under no such constraint? That is hardly consistency, given that the programme took place three days earlier. Again, the Labour party's accusation is seen to be absurd.
To maintain the smokescreen, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, while at the Dispatch Box, along with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), on every spot of green or place where there might be a camera, has made one stupid allegation after another.
We were told that Marriott was suspended. He was not. It was alleged that my right hon. and learned Friend lied to the Select Committee. He did not. The Labour party did not read the question properly. It was asserted that my right hon. and learned Friend had no right to interfere in operations. He did. We were told that he sent a fax over the head of his operations director, Miss Drew. He did not. It was said that Marriott was moved against the advice of Lewis. Lewis said that he was not. The hon. Member for Blackburn talked about a typing mistake in The Guardian. It seems that it was all down to typing.
Apparently Lewis wanted to move Marriott, but not immediately on the afternoon in question, but a couple of weeks later. Given that allegation, it is unfortunate for Labour that, on 18 January, my friend and colleague on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), asked Mr. Lewis whether the Home Secretary had told him to make sure that Marriott was off the premises for the afternoon. Lewis said that he had not. He added that it was essential for operational reasons that the change in governor took place immediately, so that there was no distraction and there was clarity about who was in charge.
This morning, we woke up to the news that Labour had a startling new fax that would provide blinding new evidence that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had lied, cheated and misled, was to be blamed and should be hanged. Where is the fax? It seems that the magician forgot the trick. All we have heard is that Miss Drew and others, who incidentally were not present on 10 January, may have broken their oaths under official secrets legislation and told the right hon. Member for Sedgefield something, but what, we have not been told.
The Opposition have suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary wanted Marriott suspended rather than transferred. Does that not destroy the Opposition's case, for Marriott was transferred? He was not suspended. Whatever my right hon. and learned Friend said to the director general was not what happened. His diktat—if there was such a diktat, and we have heard that it was only a wondering—was not put into effect; the diktat of the director general was; so that is where the responsibility clearly lay, not with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Then, finally, we were told that the Home Secretary wanted the transfer to be taken that day, so that he could announce it to the House. That was denied by Mr. Lewis before the Home Affairs Committee on 18 January, at paragraph 49, and in paragraph 50 he gave the reason why he denied it.
Every single one of these absurd allegations has failed to be substantiated. It is even worse, because they were refuted before today, yet Opposition Members did not withdraw this absurd debate.
Where is the evidence that the Home Secretary lied? Where is the evidence that he took the decision to sack the governor? Where is the evidence that, even if he did

intervene operationally from time to time, any such intervention was wrong, that it was unnecessary or that it led to the escape of six terrorists from Whitemoor, and three prisoners, two of them category A, from Parkhurst weeks later, and a number of security breaches and failures in the high-security prison—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

Ms Janet Anderson: In this century, only one Home Secretary has resigned—Reginald Maudling, in July 1972, over the Poulson affair. His letter of resignation said:
I think I can reasonably claim a respite from the burdens of responsibility … which inevitably surround a Minister.
It is that question of responsibility around which the debate turns today.
When the then Prime Minister in February 1988 delivered a statement to the House on management in the civil service and announced the establishment of next steps agencies, she said:
Each agency will be accountable to a Minister, who will in turn be accountable to Parliament for the agency's performance.
She went on to say:
There will be no change in the arrangements for accountability. Ministers will continue to account to Parliament for all the work of their Departments, including the work of the agencies.
She continued:
there has been too much splitting between the duties of those concerned with making policy and those concerned with management. We feel strongly that those concerned with making policy should know from experience how that policy is implemented".—[Official Report, 18 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 1149–52.]
The role of the Prison Service is set out in its framework document. When the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the then Home Secretary, launched the Prison Service as a next steps agency, he said:
The move to agency status presents the prison service with challenges and opportunities. The challenge is to find ways of improving the quality of service it provides—which means higher standards and better value for money.
The former Prison Commission was structurally not unlike an agency. Yet the Secretary of State was regarded as wholly responsible. When it was replaced by the Prisons Department, within the Home Office, there was a clear line of responsibility to the Secretary of State. The framework document, published when the Prison Service agency was established, on 1 April 1993, states unequivocally:
The Home Secretary is the Minister responsible for the Prison Service.
Only this week, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Stephen Tumim, insisted that the Home Secretary was responsible in law for prisons. He said:
If you are dividing policy and operations, it means the Home Secretary is not responsible for anything at all.
Professor Terence Morris of the London School of Economics, when questioned on BBC radio yesterday, described this notional division as
a novel doctrine unknown before Mr. Michael Howard went to the Home Office.


The Secretary of State persistently refuses to take responsibility when things go wrong but is only too ready to claim the credit when things go right. He denies that he has any responsibility for operational matters, yet the statement of claim issued by Mr. Derek Lewis alleges a whole series of incidents in which it is claimed that the Home Secretary did exactly that. Mr. Lewis has also made it clear that he was dumped from his £125,000-a-year job because the Secretary of State needed a scapegoat for his own failings. The headline in Today newspaper could not have put it better when it said:
Home Secretary Howard plays Get Out of Jail Free card by sacking prisons boss".
The Learmont report into the escape from Parkhurst disclosed a chapter of errors at every level and a naivety that defies belief. It revealed that the governor of Parkhurst was spending 50 hours a week dealing with a blizzard of paperwork, leaving him only two to three hours to spend time with staff and prisoners. It found that, in a four-month period, 1,000 documents and 137 submissions were required by Ministers. It said that there were no technical reasons why geophones could not have been installed; that prisoners were known to ring the victims of their crimes; that certain landings were essentially no-go areas; and that all this chaos was made much worse by
rapid changes and developments dictated by the political agenda.

Mr. Gunnell: The Learmont report is saying very clearly that there should be an inquiry into the relationship between the Home Office and the Prison Service. It says:
with a view to giving the Prison Service the greater operational independence that Agency status was meant to confer.
Does that not clearly imply that agency status was not working in the way in which Conservative Members have suggested, and might not General Learmont have been influenced by the fact that, during the time he was interviewing him, Mr. Lewis was interrupted and called to the telephone five times by the Home Office Minister responsible at that time for prisons?

Ms Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that well-timed intervention. He described yet another example of ministerial interference.
Once again the Prison Service finds itself reeling from the effects of the Home Secretary's speech to the Tory party conference, the policy implications of which are enormous. Yet I gather that even the Home Office press office had to wait until the Home Secretary rose to his feet in Blackpool to find out what he was going to say.
The head of security in the Prison Service, the short-term replacement for Derek Lewis, has now had to rush out a circular to staff and prisoners to forestall panic on the wings and landings of Britain's gaols.
Surely there can be no precedent for political interference at ministerial level on this scale. The Home Secretary's prison works doctrine has meant an increase of 12,000 in the prison population in the past 18 months alone. Instead of leaving Mr. Derek Lewis to get on with the job of dealing with that, we now know that the Home Secretary required him to turn up at the Home Office for meetings almost daily. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) pointed out, there was ministerial interference to ensure that the governor of Parkhurst was removed from his duties before the Home Secretary made

his statement to the House on 10 January this year. Someone's head had to roll. In January, it was John Marriott's. This week it was Derek Lewis's.
Much has been made of various bits of evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee. I refer to some of Mr. Lewis's evidence, which is relevant. The Home Secretary said that, on average, he met Mr. Lewis once a week. In evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Lewis said that, on the day of the Home Secretary's statement to the House on 10 January, he had
several meetings with the Home Secretary during that day.
Moreover, he points out that he had had several telephone conversations with Miss Philippa Drew, who was at Parkhurst that same morning. Was not the reason for those meetings and telephone conversations that Mr. Lewis refused to accept the Home Secretary's insistence that the word "today" be inserted in his statement to the House?

Mr. Barry Field: Never in the history of the House have so many bricks been made with so little straw. I have listened very carefully to the evidence that was given in these very serious accusations against my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. If the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) sets himself up as the keeper of constitutional rectitude in exposing new evidence today, he is about as plausible as Saddam Hussein's claim to have been democratically elected.
When I hear criticism of the Home Secretary about the way in which our prisons are run, I just recall the occasion when we were treated to the spectacle of an escaped prisoner on the roof of Strangeways prison, dictating his terms and grievances to the nation's television reporters and newspapers, and the fact that A and D wings at Parkhurst were left unused year after year.
People talk of security. I recall approaching my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) when she was the Minister responsible for prisons. I told her of the prison officer, newly recruited from the north of England, who had so many debts and was so far from home that he could not afford digs on the Isle of Wight, so he slept in his car in the prison car park.
To those in the press who talk sneeringly about publicity-seeking Members of Parliament, I ask why neither the House nor my constituents have ever seen the correspondence about the geophones and microphones in the walls of Parkhurst. That correspondence goes back a long way, long before John Marriott, right back to 1988. I have never made it public because it would have been completely irresponsible of me to have given the IRA a blueprint of the weaknesses at Parkhurst, particularly when the IRA had murdered our colleagues in the House, and Lord Mountbatten too, the author of the original report on maximum security prisons.
Of course, Parkhurst is an old prison. It opened in 1838. It was the first prison in the country for young offenders. For more than 125 years, Parkhurst prison has been dealing with the worst and most difficult offenders in our nation. That was recognised by Her Royal Highness Princess Anne when she visited the prison.
I hope that when we go to see my right hon. and learned Friend with a deputation he will listen to our claims because we are concerned about the downgrading of the prison, the number of job losses and the effect of that on the local economy.
Hon. Members will expect me to deal with the case of John Marriott. Throughout my life, I have made it a principle that when somebody apologises to me I accept that without revocation and I do not go back over the matter again. On 3 March I wrote to John Marriott saying:
Dear John, Thank you for your letter of 28 February and your very kind apology which is accepted. I have always tried to make it a rule in my public and private life that an apology when given should be graciously accepted and put an absolute end to the matter.
The letter goes on.
I do not go back on that principle, not even for Home Secretaries, and I make it clear that the Home Secretary has not asked me to do so, and I am sure that he would not. That is the end of the matter, except to record the fact that, of his own volition, John Marriott left the service before the reports were published.

Mr. George Howarth: The substance of the Opposition's charges against the Home Secretary are that since January last year and beyond, he has consistently maintained that there is a clear distinction between policy, which he quite properly maintains is his own territory, and operations, which he maintains are the responsibility of the Director General of the Prison Service.
Despite the mounting evidence that the Home Secretary and his ministerial colleagues have routinely and regularly interfered with operational matters, which are highlighted in all sorts of publications and documentation which we have and of which the Home Secretary is aware, he has again repeated this afternoon the distinction that he has tried to maintain over all this time.
On 17 October on the "Today" programme Judge Tumim said:
the Home Secretary's defence, I use that word, it is maybe not the most appropriate word, the way the Home Secretary has defended himself in this whole business is to make that distinction which you said can't be made"—
that is, the distinction between policy and operations. There have been some difficulties between Judge Tumim and the Home Secretary, so the Home Secretary may not accept him as an authoritative source, although he is well respected throughout the Prison Service and the country.
But perhaps the Home Secretary could give some thought to what was said by his right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who is in his place now and made a speech earlier, on 19 April 1993. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, when asked by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) whether the director was accountable to Parliament through him, he said:
Not through me. As I say, I am but an arm, leg or foot of the Home Secretary—a limb. It is the Home Secretary who is accountable to Parliament. If you like, there is no suitable analogy from outside, but I suppose you might say that the Prison Service is a wholly owned subsidiary.
The right hon. Gentleman, a previous Minister of State, clearly understood that matters relating to the Prison Service were the responsibility of the Home Secretary, who has sought ever since then to distance himself from that.
The Secretary of State, in seeking to destroy the credibility of Mr. Lewis and his recent allegations this afternoon, used selective extracts from Mr. Lewis's television interview with Sir David Frost on 15 January this year. But the transcript of that interview tells a different story. In that interview, Mr. Lewis conceded that it had been his opinion that Mr. Marriott, the former governor of Parkhurst, should be moved, but what he did not say, and nor was he asked to, was by what means he should be removed or over what time scale.
I shall return to that crucial point in a moment, but the heart of the Opposition's charge against the Home Secretary is that he used Mr. Marriott as a scapegoat on 10 January, which has triggered off a series of events which led to the scapegoating of Mr. Lewis earlier this week.
The Home Secretary made a speech that slipped and slid around the issues but failed concretely to address them. He has thrown no light on what took place on 9 and 10 January between him, his office, the Director General of the Prison Service and the Prison Service officials involved.
I have two questions for the Home Secretary which, so far today, he has signally failed to answer. First, by what route and in what form was the decision to "move" Mr. Marriott "today"—those were the Home Secretary's words—on 10 January communicated to Philippa Drew on that afternoon? Secondly, what instructions did Miss Drew have about the timing and manner of Mr. Marriott's departure when she set off for the Isle of Wight, and how and by whom were those original decisions changed? Will the Secretary of State enlighten us on that? I do not think that he is even bothering to listen. The fact of the matter is that he has refused repeatedly to cast any light on those issues. His slipping and sliding around today has cast no further light on it.
More crucially, we maintain that those issues and the truth of what occurred have not been rebutted. All the evidence is that these events have the Home Secretary's fingerprints all over them. If the Secretary of State has any honour left, surely he must accede to the request of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and allow all the relevant officials, whether from the Home Office or the Prison Service, openly to give evidence about what happened on those dates. Today and previously he has refused to do that. Until he does, there will remain a large area of doubt about his personal involvement in those events.
On seven occasions today, the Home Secretary was asked to confirm that it was he who insisted on the application of the word "today" in relation to Mr. Marriott's removal. We can establish the complete truth only if he allows all those officials to give evidence, free of any restraint. His failure to do so will tell all the story that we need to know about what took place between him and them on those occasions.

Dame Jill Knight: Particularly as the hon. Gentleman was not there.

Mr. Howarth: That is right. Is the Home Secretary saying that no officials were present at the meetings that took place between him and the director general? Is the Home Secretary trying to maintain that no Minister communicated with Philippa Drew while she was at Parkhurst? Is he saying that? If not, let those officials tell the story themselves.
The Secretary of State has repeatedly evaded any responsibility. He is always blaming somebody else and today he has cleared up nothing. As a result, the Prison Service is now rudderless, leaderless and in complete chaos. Far from being a focused service, clear on its objectives and in which direction it is going, it is a complete shambles.
Earlier today in a statement to me, a serving governor—we must remember that the governors are responsible people—said:
I think governors have formed the view that Michael Howard's treatment of John Marriott was unprincipled, and set party political advantage above fairness and decency. Whether or not it was the Home Secretary or the Director General who decided that John Marriott should be immediately removed from Parkhurst, Michael Howard's use of the situation to draw back bench cheers was dishonourable, and I think governors were deeply offended by it.
That is the governors' opinion of the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary may dodge and weave, but when the chips are down those employed in the Prison Service—the officials who must carry out that difficult work on behalf of society—receive no support. This is a discredited Home Secretary in a discredited Government, and he should go now.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Was ever a damper squib trailed as a blazing red rocket? Was any opportunity for the Labour party to demonstrate its real interest in the Prison Service so comprehensively wasted? The word "shambles" has been used frequently this evening. We have been told that Parkhurst is a shambles, that the Prison Service is a shambles—everything is a shambles, but the biggest single shambles is the Opposition's contribution to the debate.
I realise that it is very difficult for the Labour party to keep up with the dizzying changes in policy, but let me remind it that it has recently been parading itself as a party of law and order. It discovered law and order after four election defeats; sadly, however, it lost it again, and now endlessly votes against law-and-order measures. It is not very surprising that, when we come to discuss the role of Government and that of the Prison Service, the Opposition reduce the entire debate to irrelevant wrangles.
Do the Opposition want to debate the single biggest prison-building programme of the century? No—because the Conservatives introduced it. Do they even want to consider improvements in the prison system, such as the reduction in overcrowding? In 1987, 5,000 prisoners were living three to a cell; none is doing so today. No, the Opposition do not want to talk about that. Do they even want to mention the 75 per cent. reduction in the number of escapes over the past two and a half years? No. Do they want to talk about the improved value for money in our system? No, they do not even want to do that.

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Lady is issuing a catalogue of praise for the former director general of the Prison Service. If the service was run so wonderfully, why was he sacked?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. He was not around in 1987, the date that I just cited.

Mr. Howarth: I was.

Miss Widdecombe: I meant that the director general was not around in 1987. That is the second occasion this evening on which the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what is being said to him.
Rather than wanting to debate the issues that I have mentioned, the Opposition want to waste the House's time in arguing about the precise words used in a meeting 10 months ago to move an ineffectual prison governor from his post after one of the biggest security disasters in prison history. They dressed it up in grand phrases, however. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) decided that he was going to discuss parliamentary accountability: he said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had not defined his accountability. I can only say that he cannot have been listening to the debate, because my right hon. and learned Friend's statement was extremely clear about his accountability to Parliament. He does not dispute—

Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Presently.

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: Presently. Presently. Sit down.

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that if the Minister does not give way he must resume his seat.

Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend does not dispute—

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have also been here long enough to know that when a Minister refers to a Member, that Minister should in honour give way to him.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Miss Widdecombe: I think that the whole House heard me say that I would give way presently. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was too indisciplined and too disorderly to take that, so I now withdraw my promise.
My right hon. and learned Friend asserts that he is accountable and responsible to the House of Commons. He must give answers at the Dispatch Box, and he is personally responsible for policy. That is precisely why he is entitled to be consulted. That is why he is entitled to inquire and to raise questions that he may expect to be asked at the Dispatch Box. But perhaps the most incredible thing that we heard—

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman was too indisciplined to take advantage of my promise to give way presently. He wasted my time, and he ain't going to waste any more of it.
We have heard that officials appearing before Select Committees must give the views of their political masters.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Kaufman: I should like to hear your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. When a Minister promises to give way and then breaks the promise, does that constitute a breach of an order of the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not responsible for what hon. Members may say to one another. The rule states that, if the hon. Member making a speech does not give way, the other must resume his seat. That is the only rule for the Chair.

Miss Widdecombe: I think we can deduce from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to waste the House's time that he does not want to hear the reply to his question.
We have been told that officials appearing before Select Committees are the slaves of their political masters. Paragraph 46 of the Cabinet guidance issued to officials attending Select Committees states:
Officials appearing before Select Committees are responsible for ensuring that the evidence they give is accurate.
I think we may assume that the former director general made sure that the evidence he gave was accurate. It entirely ties in with my right hon. and learned Friend's version. I do not believe that there can be any further dispute about the validity of the evidence given by both my right hon. and learned Friend and the former Director General of the Prison Service.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) raised many issues that were, he said, to the credit of Derek Lewis. Let me tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend specifically paid tribute to those achievements in his statement on Monday, and that it nevertheless remains true that we received a seriously condemnatory report. My right hon. and learned Friend had a duty to the House to consider that report, to consider whether to accept it and, if he did so, to act on its conclusions.
Allegations of "scapegoating" have also been made in regard to the former governor of Parkhurst prison. The activities of this poor man who was apparently "scapegoated" were analysed extremely clearly in Sir John Learmont's report. As we have heard, he did not actually undertake rub-down searches. Why not? Well, he thought that the requirement was unrealistic: such searches were time-consuming, and a bit impractical in a prison that was undergoing major structural reorganisation.
The governor also decided to reduce the amount available on phone cards, because he discovered that they were being used to pay for cannabis, heroin and syringes—to finance drugs, gambling, trade and debts. Then he went and doubled the allowance. How does that make for a responsible governor? How can a man who could act like that be described as a scapegoat? Surely it was incumbent on both my right hon. and learned Friend

and the director general to ensure that that man ceased to govern Parkhurst prison at the first possible opportunity, and that is what they did. They fulfilled their duty to the House. If the Opposition object to that, they should go and explain their objections to the electorate—and they will fail completely in that, as they have failed persistently in the past four general elections and will fail in the next.
And the right hon. Member for Gorton did not prevent me from answering the question!

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 280.

Division No. 219]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ainger, Nick
Dewar, Donald


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Donohoe, Brian H


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwynelh


Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Austin-Walker, John
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Flynn, Paul


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bennett, Andrew F
Foulkes, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Fraser, John


Berry, Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Betts, Clive
Galloway, George


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gerrard, Neil


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godsiff, Roger


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Stephen
Graham, Thomas


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Mike


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hanson, David


Cann, Jamie
Harman, Ms Harriet


Chidgey, David
Harvey, Nick


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Doug


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hodge, Margaret


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoey, Kate


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Jean
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cox, Tom
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Doug


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Darling, Alistair
Hutton, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)






Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
O'Neill, Martin


Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Johnston, Sir Russell
Parry, Robert


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jowell, Tessa
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keen, Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Randall, Stuart


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruddock, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sheerman, Barry


McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Short, Clare


McCartney, Ian
Simpson, Alan


McCartney, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McKelvey, William
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McLeish, Henry
Snape, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McMaster, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Spellar, John


McWilliam, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Madden, Max
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mahon, Alice
Stevenson, George


Mallon, Seamus
Stott, Roger


Mandelson, Peter
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marek, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Timms, Stephen


Maxton, John
Tipping, Paddy


Meale, Alan
Touhig, Don


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tyler, Paul


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Vaz, Keith


Milburn, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Miller, Andrew
Walley, Joan


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wicks, Malcolm


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Winnck, David


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wise, Audrey


Mowlam, Marjorie
Worthington, Tony


Mudie, George
Wright Dr Tony


Mullin, Chris
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Murphy, Paul



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Joe Benton.


Olner, Bill





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ashby, David
Body, Sir Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Booth, Hartley





Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gorst, Sir John


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Sir Graham
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howard, Fit Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Dicks, Terry
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dover, Den
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan, Alan
Knapman, Roger


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, Sir David


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Elletson, Harold
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, Sir David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fry, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Major, Rt Hon John


Garnel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Matone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)






Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spink, Dr Robert


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Sproat, Iain


Mills, Iain
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Stern, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stewart, Allan


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Streeter, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sumberg, David


Moss, Malcolm
Sweeney, Walter


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Sykes, John


Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thomason, Roy


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thurnham, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Tredinnick, David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pickles, Eric
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Ward, John


Richards, Rod
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robathan, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Watts, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wells, Bowen


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Sackville, Tom
Widdecombe, Ann


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Willetts, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Sir Michael
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Soames, Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that the Home Secretary is and should be accountable to this House for all matters concerning the Prison Service; believes that he is and should be accountable and responsible for all policy decisions relating to the Service; believes that the Director General of the Prison Service is and should be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the service; and utterly rejects the very serious allegations made about the Home Secretary's conduct towards the former Governor of Parkhurst, Mr. John Marriott.

Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had a debate in which serious

accusations were made. The issue was of great concern to my constituents, but I was given only one minute to speak. I hope that the Government will bring the important report on prisons before the House so that we can have a proper reasoned debate rather than the wild accusations that we have heard today. These are serious matters, but great progress has been made in our Prison Service under this Home Secretary.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will find ingenious ways of raising such issues.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the recess many hon. Members had their offices rewired. We now have a television system that enables us to see what is happening in the Chamber. We were told that the Division bell would ring, whichever channel one was watching. However, the one channel on which it does not ring is that which shows the Chamber. Will you draw it to the attention of the authorities that something is wrong with the system?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall ensure that the matter is raised with the relevant authorities.

Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over the past two days, there has been a farrago of wildly inaccurate statements from the Opposition. We have been promised faxes that never arrived, and incorrect and unfair comments have been made about my right hon. and hon. Friends. Have you, Madam Deputy Speaker, yet received what you must surely receive: an apology from the Leader of the Opposition and a request from him to come to the House to put matters straight?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of any apology; nor do I think that it would be appropriate for it to come to me as a Deputy Speaker. However, I warn the House against seeking to continue a debate that has been concluded.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you allow me to remind the House that we are about to have a debate which is a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on the important subject of disability which is not often debated? In the presence of the Prime Minister, may I say that hon. Members will be doing a disservice to 6.5 million disabled people in Britain if they continue with these bogus points of order?

Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I, through you, thank Madam Speaker for a ruling given by letter on a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher)? One point that he raised related to the interaction between what we allow in the House and the ruling of the European Court of Justice on Monday which abolished quotas for women. The Opposition Chief Whip is chosen from the shadow Cabinet which is elected through a quota system. In other words, an employee of the House is chosen through an illegal system which has been outlawed by the European Court of Justice. Will you please consider that point?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that Madam Speaker has already given a ruling. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has another matter to raise—one not covered by that ruling—I advise him to write to her.

Mr. Eric Pickles: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a national newspaper to misquote an hon. Member, thereby making it appear as if he has misled the House? The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was put in that position this afternoon. Will you entertain the idea of bringing the editor of The Guardian before us so that he can apologise to the House and to the hon. Gentleman for placing him in such a position?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have enough to do keeping order in this place without taking on board the editor of The Guardian.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some Home Office minutes were published today and they made very clear a conversation between the Home Secretary and Mr. Lewis earlier this year. The Leader of the Opposition then misquoted from those minutes and attempted to say that there were things in them that were not there. What sanctions do we have under the orders of the House to rectify that position?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That seems to be a debating point—no doubt a very important one in the hon. Member's eyes. The debate in which that point could have been raised has been concluded. If hon. Members want to raise such issues further, they will have to do so by means other than points of order.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I trust that it is a different point of order.

Mr. Marlow: Yes, a totally different point of order. In the past three or four days, the House has been subjected to a co-ordinated campaign of smear and innuendo, orchestrated by the leader of the Opposition—no doubt aided and abetted by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). It has been based on baseless foundations which have all been proved totally wrong today. In normal circumstances, any hon. Member who had done that and had been found wanting would have apologised before the House—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Marlow, would you kindly sit down? I have already indicated that the kinds of points of order that I am now receiving are an attempt to continue a debate which has already been concluded. Hon. Members know full well that there are usually ample opportunities at a later stage to deal with such issues.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: On an entirely fresh point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a debate yesterday, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), then the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, suggested from the Dispatch Box that he, on behalf of the Labour party, wished to encourage leaks by civil servants and others in the field of transport. Have you received any indication from the new Opposition

Front-Bench team that they wish to resile from the announcement yesterday of wishing to encourage leaks by Crown servants?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you are no doubt aware, there is a tremendous amount of interest—certainly among disabled people—in the subject that the House is due to debate next. Does it not occur to you that we are witnessing an orchestrated filibuster from Tory Members of Parliament who could not care less about the disabled and are trying to stop the debate being initiated? They are showing total contempt for the disabled.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I gather that it is a different point of order.

Mr. Nicholls: It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the arrangements which have to be made to enable one to make a personal statement before the House. You will appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition will want an early opportunity to withdraw the baseless allegations made against the Home Secretary, which have been comprehensively answered today. What are the arrangements for the Leader of the Opposition to make such an approach and thus make a personal statement?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I expect hon. Members to find that out for themselves without wasting the time available in this Chamber.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Further to the points of order raised by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not it the case that the Leader of the Opposition could well have tabled a motion on disability which could have been debated rather than the useless, wasteful debate which we were forced into having this afternoon?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition certainly could not do that this evening because it is not Opposition time.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Clarke: In many ways we have seen the House at its worst, and I hope—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I need to be clear whether the hon. Member is seeking to raise a point of order or is trying to start the next debate.

Mr. Clarke: I am trying to start the next debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In that case, some procedure has to be dealt with first.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &.),

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

That the draft Police (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

That the Travellers' Reliefs (Fuel and Lubricants) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1777), a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

Orders of the Day — RELATIONS WITH JAPAN

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. COM (95) 73, relating to the European Union's relations with Japan, and of the conclusions reached by the Foreign Affairs Council on 29th May on this Communication.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (Anniversary)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Mr. Tom Clarke: What we have witnessed is an absolute disgrace. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who intervened and who cannot now be seen, at least by me—[HON. MEMBERS: "He came back."] Yes, he came back because I had the courtesy to tell him that I was going to refer to him. Yet Conservative Members did not have the courtesy to tell Opposition Members, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People or my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who is a giant among pygmies when we discuss disability, that they were going to behave as appallingly as they have.
I regret that the Prime Minister, who appeared a few moments ago to be interested in disability, has suddenly lost that interest. I therefore trust that the Minister will convey to him the views expressed in what I believe will be an important and informative debate.
I welcome the Minister to his new and extremely important responsibilities. I can assure him that very often, in contrast to what he has just seen, he will see the House at its best as we discuss disability. I cannot give him an assurance that my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will be any less difficult on the football field than they have proved so far, but I welcome the Minister to his post.
I am delighted to open this debate as the first holder of this portfolio at shadow Cabinet level. There can be no clearer signal of the high priority that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), as Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, gives to the issue of disabled people's rights.
I am equally delighted to be joined on the Front Bench by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, whose appointment in 1974 as the first Minister responsible for disabled people in any country was also a milestone in the growing recognition of the importance of the subject by the Labour party, then led by Harold Wilson.
I also take this opportunity to recognise the tremendous contribution of so many hon. Members of all parties in the continuing battle for disabled people's rights—not least my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and, of course, for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth).

Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will give way later.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and I have much in common. This evening we mark the 25th anniversary of the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was highly unusual in that it was a private Member's Bill which passed into law.

Mr. Duncan: To set his remarks in context, will the hon. Gentleman say exactly how much his party is


prepared to pledge as extra spending on the sick and disabled if it were to be in government in order to make the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) happy as a member of the party?

Mr. Clarke: I have not often heard the hon. Gentleman call—apparently—for increased expenditure, but he will be delighted to know that on this issue, in 1974, under the 1970 Act, the Labour Government went further than their manifesto commitments. I am very pleased with that achievement.
Next year we will mark the 10th anniversary of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. I was privileged to pilot that measure through Parliament as a private Member's Bill and, like my right hon. Friend's Bill, it reached the statute book. The difference between our Bills was that, 25 years ago, my right hon. Friend received the support of the Labour Government who took on board the objectives that lay behind his proposals. In contrast, my experience of the Tory Government of 1986 was that they at first opposed my Bill but, when prevailed upon to make it into an Act, they then avoided implementing the new law in full. That has happened to a greater extent under the present Prime Minister than under his predecessor.
Those matters are relevant to us today because, as the House will know, there is once again a disability measure before Parliament, for which the Minister will shortly be seeking Royal Assent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has monitored the Government's position and wriggling. He knows as we do how much progress we made in demanding from the Government, on behalf of organisations of and for disabled people, that which already exists elsewhere from America to Australia and New Zealand, and we demanded it from a most unwilling Government. Those matters will be relevant when we consider the Government's Bill once it returns from another place and the question of Royal Assent.
The Disability Discrimination Bill leaves a good deal of discretion to Ministers. The lesson of the past 25 years is that Labour Ministers can be trusted to carry through the wishes of Parliament in implementing disability legislation whereas Conservative Ministers simply cannot.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. How does he square that statement with the fact that spending under the Conservative Government has been 75 per cent. higher for the long-term sick and disabled than under Labour? He will know that that statement is true because it was in the 1987 election manifesto of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth).

Mr. Clarke: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that there were more claimants for benefits introduced by the Labour Government. If I have time later in the debate, I might even discuss taxes, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will intervene on that issue as well. Taxation is being discussed in another place and, as an expert, the hon. Gentleman may wish to catch your eye on that matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is instructive to look back at successful private Members' Bills on this issue for another reason. This year, we have seen once again a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East and blocked by the Conservative party. It is clear that as long as the present

Government are in power, private Members' Bills will remain the best available route for building on existing disability legislation. Labour Members recognise that fact.
Ministers should take note. I warned them that the greater the inadequacies of the disability discrimination measure when it completes its passage through Parliament, the more likely the Government are to have another private Member's Bill to deal with in the coming parliamentary Session. We would welcome that, as would 6.5 million people in Britain.
Even more effort will be made by hon. Members on both sides of the House and organisations of and for disabled people. Some of them came to the House yesterday and found great difficulties in gaining access to it. They were not even able to use loudspeaker equipment in the House. And we call this is the cradle of democracy. It is totally unacceptable. Given the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe to improving access to every building in Britain, we should make a good start by looking at the Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Earlier today, I raised this matter with the Leader of the House. Yesterday, several hundred carers came here with lots of people in wheelchairs who were unable to use the Grand Committee Room. They went into Westminster Hall, but were prevented from using microphones. I pointed out that when celebrations are organised by the establishment, like the American Bar Association, VE day celebrations and various other activities, they use microphones in Westminster Hall for meeting purposes. If a real effort were made by the Government, particularly the new Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, we could sort that problem out so that when disabled people come to the House in future, instead of not being allowed to use those microphones, they can have a proper meeting with their Members of Parliament.

Mr. Clarke: Not only is my hon. Friend right, but he speaks with a record of great commitment. I have never known my hon. Friend to be absent from any debate in which I have participated on the important issue of disability, and I am sure that the people of Bolsover and Britain will note that.
Even more effort will be made by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by organisations of and for disabled people, such as those who were here this week, to ensure once again that a private Member's Bill will succeed even in the face of Conservative Government opposition at the eleventh or even twelfth hour.
All hon. Members will agree on one point: we have come a long way in the past 25 years. If we now argue about disabled people's rights and how to outlaw discrimination rather than debating whether disability discrimination exists, that is largely because of the achievements of the Act that we are debating today. For the first time, the 1970 Act recognised the right of disabled people to legislative action on their behalf. The Act of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe was the first legislation anywhere in the world to deal with disabled people's access to buildings. It created a requirement to provide such access, so far as it was reasonable and practicable to do so.
On that basis, further improvements have been made and more will be done as a result of this year's legislation. More importantly, the issue of access was put on the agenda for the first time. Those responsible for the design


and construction of buildings of all kinds began to ask themselves what they could or should do to make buildings accessible.
The debate on that issue will continue, and rightly so. Before the 1970 Act, such discussion simply did not take place. Likewise, on mobility and transport, the 1970 Act broke the barrier and made future advances possible. The orange badge scheme, which arose directly from the Act, has given the benefit of parking concessions to more than 1.5 million disabled people in Britain. Mobility allowance and Motability have added to the freedom of movement that disabled people rightly enjoy. The concessions that we have won on accessible transport during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill would not have been possible without the foundations laid down 25 years ago at the behest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe.

Mr. James Couchman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I should first point out that the House wants to hear hon. Members on both sides and also my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, so this will be the last time I give way.

Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He rightly pays tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for introducing the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. But does he agree that for 20 of the past 25 years there have been Conservative Governments, who have provided the resources to implement many of the measures under that Act and more recent Acts, and that this Government have brought in major changes to the benefit of the long-term chronically sick and disabled? Over the past 15 years, resources for the chronically sick and disabled have trebled in real terms.

Mr. Clarke: Not only do I not agree, but I challenge the hon. Gentleman to produce in the debate, or later, evidence from one single organisation of disabled people which shares his view. I may as well tell him that he will look in vain for such evidence.
As a result of the 1970 Act, the special needs of children affected by dyslexia and autism and those who are deaf and blind were recognised for the first time. That marked the beginning of the provision of special needs education, which remains on the agenda during debates on current legislation. The recognition of those needs broke new ground and liberated many disabled children and adults from the effects of ignorance and neglect.

Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman cannot even read.

Mr. Clarke: Few people outside will find this issue as amusing as the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), nor will they share his joy at the fact that Conservative Members delayed the start of the debate for 25 minutes.

Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I hope that it is not a bogus point of order.

Mr. Couchman: No. I should like to point out that I was not laughing at what the hon. Member for

Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was saying. My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) may have giggled, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not laughing.

Mr. Clarke: I withdraw that charge unreservedly. I would not wish for one second to visit the reputation of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on the hon. Member for Gillingham. I am sure that he, too, would not welcome that.
The 1970 Act was the first time that the term "dyslexia" entered into statute. The very existence of dyslexia had not been recognised before that. Because of the 1970 Act, education providers have taken responsibility for supporting children affected by dyslexia. A campaign is under way to gain greater support for dyslexic adults. The fact that there is now a Britain-wide association of people affected by dyslexia campaigning on the issue is a direct result of the changes made by the 1970 Act. There were notable pioneers campaigning on behalf of dyslexics before 1970, but the legitimacy conferred on that condition by the 1970 Act allowed them to take the campaign on to the national plain.
Local authority services and benefits for disabled people were entirely discretionary before 1970, and in many places they did not exist. The 1970 Act imposed new duties and hugely increased the scope of public support. More significant than anything, there was a change of attitude and outlook on the part of local authorities and of disabled people themselves.
Between 1972 and 1982, public expenditure on benefits and services for those covered by the 1970 Act increased tenfold. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe indeed did a tremendous job in addressing the issue of resources. In May The Times reported that the 1970 Act had been responsible for 12 million acts of assistance in England alone. The value of such acts of assistance to millions of disabled people cannot be overstated. In Scotland the 1970 Act has been responsible for nearly 2 million acts of assistance, which is equivalent to one act of assistance for every third person—man, woman or child—living in Scotland.
The 1970 Act affected 12 Departments of state. It imposed on them new duties and responsibilities across a broad range of Government activity. That Act also led to the amendment of 39 existing Acts of Parliament. It is because of that that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe became the world's first Minister for disabled people's rights. The late Lord Wilson had the imagination, vision and concern to see that the full implementation of the 1970 Act required the creation of a single ministerial post to co-ordinate the work of all Government Departments. It was to do that job that my right hon. Friend was appointed to government in 1974. His party and the House have been well served by him in 22 years of continuous service representing Labour in government and in opposition on behalf of disabled people's rights.
Of all the effects of the 1970 Act, none is more important than the change in standing of disabled people in society, in their own eyes and in those of the community as a whole. In the past 25 years, more than in any other period of human history, disabled people have been in a position to advance their own interests and aspirations to the point where the pressure for full civil rights has become unstoppable. There have been delays


and obstacles along the way, but a single continuous thread joins the 1970 Act to the civil rights campaigns of the past three years.
It is not only in this country that disabled people have benefited from the effects of the "Alf Morris" Act; other countries have taken a lead from that legislation and countries such as the United States have now left British law far behind. That is the scale of the debt owed to my right hon. Friend. We also owe it to him and to the 6.5 million disabled people of our country to continue to build on what has been achieved in the past 25 years.
We need first to ensure that local authorities are able to provide the services for which they are responsible under the 1970 Act and successive Acts. If Parliament says that certain services are mandatory for local government to provide, central Government must ensure that the necessary resources are made available. That was the impact of the report by Sir Roy Griffiths, but the Government do not seem to have acknowledged that. If it is a breach of law to withdraw a mandatory service where there has been no decline in need, the Government must act to ensure that the law is not broken. The Minister will be aware that that issue is before the High Court because the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has seen the need to test the application of the law. We await the court's findings with interest.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will raise a number of other issues, should they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, on which the Minister's view would be welcome. Many of those issues have been addressed in the civil rights legislation proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for Derbyshire, North-East. Ministers have addressed some of those issues in the Disability Discrimination Bill, although not always to the extent that disabled people want. Ministers have not yet taken on board, however, that disabled people will not be satisfied with piecemeal concessions. It is that feeling, above all, that we owe to the 1970 Act, because it is because of it that disabled people demand equality as a right, not as a concession. It is because of that Act that disabled people will not allow themselves to be patronised or told what is good for them—even when they cannot be heard in parts of the Houses of Parliament. They insist that they should be involved in decisions about care and initiatives to improve their ability to play a full part in the life of the community.
On that basis, I ask the House to join in celebrating 25 years of growing recognition of the rights of disabled people. I ask hon. Members to join me in applauding the Act of Parliament that made that possible. I also ask hon. Members to consider the lessons of the past quarter of a century when they come to make decisions about current legislation in a few days' time. We should not neglect the opportunity to build yet greater achievements on the foundations laid 25 years ago. In this Session, if we have the opportunity, or in the next if we do not, we should make the celebration of the "Alf Morris" Act the launching pad for a further new chapter in the story of the emancipation of 6.5 million disabled people of this country, to stand for ever as a beacon to the rest of the world.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I am grateful to the hon.

Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for giving the House an opportunity to mark the 25th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I am equally grateful for the opportunity to take part, from my new perspective as Minister with responsibility for disabled people, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind and generous welcome. I look forward to working across the Floor of the House with him for some time to come.
I am also pleased to take the opportunity to pay a genuine tribute to the first holder of the office, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). It is not easy following the right hon. Gentleman around Manchester, as I do now on occasions in my role as sponsor Minister for that great and wonderful city. The right hon. Gentleman has a deserved reputation, built on his long-standing work for disabled people, and of course his pioneering work in relation to the 1970 Act. It is therefore a great pleasure to take the opportunity to say kind words about him and to wish him continuing success as he works wholeheartedly for disabled people.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the parliamentary private secretary to the late Dick Crossman, who was the Secretary of State at the time of the legislation, I had at first hand a worm's eye view—but a very close one—of the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) did. Frankly, he persuaded people against their better judgment. I also pay tribute to several civil servants in the then Elephant and Castle.

Mr. Alfred Morris: indicated assent.

Mr. Dalyell: I see my right hon. Friend nodding. They were as good allies as a man wanting to do good could get. Tribute should be paid to those civil servants, led by the late Alan Marre.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman makes his own point. He also discreetly lifts a veil in relation to the way in which the then Labour Government regarded that legislation—a veil that was not lifted by the hon. Member for Monklands, West, for some reason. It is possible that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe may tell us more about that, and that may help the House to take a less partisan view of the way in which Governments have regarded disability legislation in the past. I shall say more about that later, but I also acknowledge, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned it, the work of civil servants, who have been devoted in their assistance to disabled people, serving all Governments over many years.
I pay tribute to my two immediate predecessors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) gave long and devoted service to disabled people from this Dispatch Box. Those who know the workings of government know how difficult it sometimes is to achieve one's aims, and my right hon. Friend worked hard and consistently for disabled people and achieved many successes, as I shall detail shortly. For his work he deserves to be well remembered by disabled people and all those people who have supported them.
I also pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, the present Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). In his relatively short time as Minister with responsibility for


disabled people, he guided the Disability Discrimination Bill through most of its stages with a decency and a respect for both sides of the House that no doubt was responsible for his elevation to his present position.
However, the country generally has been well served by Ministers for disabled people on both sides of the House. I shall say more later about the non-partisan way in which that subject might best be approached.
It is not an overstatement to say that the passage of the 1970 Act was an historic landmark in the progress of disabled people towards taking their full place in society. The vision and tenacity of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe rendered the country immense service—not only those among us with disabilities but all of us. The 1970 Act has been called a charter for chronically sick and disabled people, and so it was. In administrative terms, the Act placed on local authorities a duty in section 1 to establish the numbers of disabled people in their area needing help. Section 2 followed that up by describing and categorising the help to be provided.
The Act went further than simply making additional material provision for disabled people. It also provided the momentum for changing attitudes to disabled people among statutory authorities, the caring professions and the public at large.
I am indebted to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe for his courtesy in informing me earlier this week of the book produced by RADAR in celebration of the 25 years of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. The book says that, when the right hon. Gentleman rose to move the Second Reading of his Bill on Friday 5 December 1969, among the things he said was that most disabled people wanted more than anything else to lessen their dependence on other people, to live their own lives as normally as possible in their own homes with their own families and to have the opportunity to contribute to industry and society as fully as their abilities allowed.
That determination to change attitudes towards disabled people has been as much at the cornerstone of so much work that has been done since the passing of that Act as any provisions in the Act. The recognition that attitudes had to change, and that full weight had to be given to those sentiments among disabled people, was the watershed on which so much has grown after that.
The process of change has continued and intensified in the intervening 25 years. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Monklands, West for the provision that he introduced in 1985–86, which he mentioned earlier, which built on the 1970 Act and blazed a trail for the empowerment of the most vulnerable people in society which is now a key feature of our community care policy.
Before the passage of the 1970 Act, the National Assistance Act 1948 was the first major piece of legislation empowering local authorities to promote the welfare of persons substantially handicapped as a result of illness, injury or congenital deformity. The Act was criticised by some people on account of its generality and the fact that it was founded in attitudes toward disabled people that were, often for the best motives, condescending, patronising and charitable.
The 1970 Act engendered in all of us a sense of what disabled people can achieve with appropriate opportunities and support. The promotion of independent

living began with that Act and the process has continued through the health and community care reforms, about which the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), will say more.
Now, that process has been taken still further by means of a Government Bill designed to enshrine in legislation disabled people's right of access to things that we all take for granted—goods, services and employment and, through those rights, the right to be all that they can be, fulfilling aspirations and participating in and contributing to society at all levels.
At the time that the 1970 Act was passed, people with severe disabilities were often housebound and socially isolated. For example, it was far from commonplace to see wheelchairs in the streets. Aids and equipment for mobility and daily living were hard to come by. Appropriate housing was rarely available and, when it was, it tended to group disabled people together, increasing their sense of being somehow different and socially isolated.
The range of technical aids and equipment available for disabled people was beginning to be developed as new technology was applied, but the focus was often on basic utility rather than sophistication, customised designs and user acceptability. Expertise in designing effective and pleasing housing was in its infancy.
Confronted with all that, many people—sadly, many who were young, with hopes and ambitions for the future—had little option but to enter residential care. Those with high levels of dependency often ended up in hospital, with little opportunity for social contact with their peer group and few opportunities to develop their abilities and talents. Opportunities for leisure and sport were similarly constrained by lack of transport and access difficulties for those with mobility problems, sensory impairments or both.
Perhaps even more important, opportunities were constrained by public attitudes, which sought to exclude rather than include disabled people in the everyday use of facilities that the rest of us take for granted.
In employment, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 was an important milestone for disabled people who wanted to work. It provided for vocational retraining, employment rehabilitation and sheltered employment for severely disabled people. Nevertheless, by today's standards, the range of employment opportunities available for disabled people was narrow. Occupations reserved for registered disabled people were in undemanding jobs such as lift and car park attendants. All too often, severely disabled people had to be satisfied with working in sheltered environments.
All that sounds depressing, and so it was. The 1970 Act was a watershed in helping to gear service provision to the needs of disabled people and in changing society's attitudes to them.
Until now, the analysis of what had happened and the significance of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act has been common ground between us. But the love of politics of the hon. Member for Monklands, West has helped to make him lose his grip on reality over what has happened in the care of disabled people since then. It is unfair to suggest to the House and the world at large that somehow, magically, all the compassion and care come from the Opposition while the Government are grudging and reluctant and nothing happens.
I have a list as long as my arm that I could read out detailing what the Government have done for disabled people. I could take the House through it, and I am tempted to do so after the hon. Gentleman's remarks, or I could give a briefer summary.

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose—

Mr. Burt: If the hon. Gentleman is rising to acknowledge what we have done, I am happy to give way.

Mr. Clarke: I am not rising to do that.

Mr. Burt: In that case, I shall read the list out.

Mr. Clarke: I was generous in giving way. The Minister was not doing too badly until that point. When he accuses me of making partisan points, he seems not to recall that I referred to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will he explain why the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott)—I agree that there is great respect for him—was unable to win the battle, which was in due course won by someone who passed, like a ship in the night, and I think is now somewhere between here and Cardiff? Why, if the Government are now right, did they refuse to accept until two years ago that discrimination even existed?

Mr. Burt: I shall deal with some of the battles that have been won. If I remember correctly what I heard with my own ears, I venture to suggest that anyone who reads the debate and the hon. Gentleman's speech could be forgiven for believing that he was trying to portray a situation in which, by and large, the balance of good lay almost exclusively with the Opposition—[Interruption.] In that case, we shall have to beg to differ.

Mr. Clarke: Will the Minister give way? I gave way generously.

Mr. Burt: I shall rely on what people read into the hon. Gentleman's speech. I shall now seek to set the record straight. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be more generous towards my colleagues, I now give him the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Clarke: I think that it was Aneurin Bevan who asked: why look into a crystal ball when one can see it in the book? It can be seen in Hansard—time after time, Conservative Members have voted against the progress that we have advocated. There is one honourable exception to that, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who came into the Lobby with us to support a commission. Perhaps the Minister will give us the Government's current thinking on that.

Mr. Burt: I shall give the hon. Gentleman and the House the Government's current thinking in a little while. I shall now turn to the book rather than the crystal ball. I shall list the measures that the Government have introduced in relation to disabled people.
My hon. Friends have already made their points on overall expenditure. There has been a considerable increase in both benefits and personal social services under this Government. Between 1978–79 and the present date, there has been a 280 per cent. increase in spending in real terms on long-term sick and disabled people—a remarkable increase. Personal social services have increased by 60 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.
Let us consider some of the Acts and regulations that have been introduced. I apologise to the House in advance as I may necessarily have to give a slightly longer list than I intended. The Education Act 1981 addressed many of the matters raised in the special educational needs report of the committee of inquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people. In that same year, the invalid care allowance was extended by the Government to cover non-relatives. The Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1983 placed on local education authorities further requirements relating to assessment and statements for schoolchildren with special educational needs.
In 1983–84, the disablement advisory service was introduced by the Government. In 1984, the severe disablement allowance was introduced. In the same year, the code of good practice on the employment of people with disabilities—the first in Europe—was published by the Government. In 1985, the disabled persons transport committee was set up. The same year saw the introduction of the sheltered placement scheme and provisions were introduced in building regulations covering access for disabled people to non-domestic buildings.
In 1986, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill was introduced. The Education Reform Act 1988 established the Secretary of State's duty to maintain certain schools. Governors also had to ensure that there were appropriate provisions for pupils with special educational needs. The Act also ensured that the national curriculum was made available to all children with special educational needs until the requirement was formally disapplied or modified.

Mr. Clarke: I thought that the Minister might have given credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for his Act. The Minister referred to the 1986 Act—why was half that Act implemented by Lady Thatcher's Government but not one finger raised to implement the rest under the present Prime Minister?

Mr. Burt: As the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, will say when he winds up the debate, that is largely because the community care provisions have taken the provisions of that Act a considerable distance.
In 1988, the disabled persons transport committee produced a recommended specification for buses used to operate local services—a further development for transport. The independent living fund was also introduced in 1988. In 1989, all new licensed taxis in London were required to be wheelchair accessible. The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 promoted development of domiciliary, day and respite services in an entirely novel way. In that same year, income-related benefits were increased above the inflation rate on premiums for the long-term sick and disabled and the child disablement premium more than doubled.
Mobility allowance was extended to deaf blind people in April 1990 and to amputees in April 1991. In the same year, a consultative document was produced on employment and training for people with disabilities. It took stock of current provision and informed further decisions into the 1990s.
In 1991–92, there was a reorganisation of specialist disability services in employment through locally based placing, assessment and counselling teams. The Further


and Higher Education Act 1992 consolidated previous legislation and laid a specific duty on local education authorities and the Further Education Funding Council to have regard to the requirements of people with learning difficulties in securing further education provision. In April 1992, the disability living allowance was introduced to amalgamate help already available to people and extend help for the first time to 350,000 less severely disabled people who had previously been unable to qualify.
I could continue, but now the balance of my speech has been affected simply by listing those achievements. I did so solely to show that in the House, as a whole, there is a common determination to work for disabled people. The work of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe has been supplemented by that of many hon. Members from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has done tireless work since he entered the House, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). Work on disability has been carried on by many hon. Members in the House.
I fully accept the achievements of previous Labour Governments and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, when he was the first Minister for the Disabled. But Conservatives can stand proudly on our record for disabled people; we have done and are doing a great deal. I bow to no one in my admiration for what we have tried to do and the provision that we have made. I hope that, when the speeches are read in Hansard, proper tribute will be paid to the achievements of my colleagues. Perhaps I have given a slightly more balanced picture of what has been achieved over the years.
Since the 1970 Act, we can identify key engines of change. First, as I said earlier, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe pioneered an acceptance of the view that disabled people do best away from institutionalised care and should be given the support that they need to sustain independent living in their own homes wherever possible. They should certainly be treated as integral and valued members of communities.
Secondly, the explosion of technology has assisted. Not only has it helped with the development of more sophisticated aids and equipment, housing adaptations and environmental controls, but such technological advance has opened up many more job opportunities for disabled people.
Thirdly, there has been a development of the political and economic influence of disabled people, and of organisations of and for them. Those developments have often been assisted by what the Government have been asking for in terms of consultation and listening to people. We have stimulated the creation of such groups, which we fully support.
Fourthly, advances in medical science have prevented disabling conditions occurring in the first place, ameliorated their effects and prolonged life. Rehabilitation techniques have been developed which aim to move people who are disabled through illness, accident or trauma through the health services and into independent living, education and employment. We should all pay tribute to those in the medical profession—doctors and those who care for patients after surgical treatment—for their tremendous work.
Lastly, we have seen the health and community care reforms, which evolved from long-standing trends in social care and which have encouraged fundamentally new ways of doing things. The reforms reinforced the historical movement away from institutionalised care towards supporting people in their own homes. They were further important points on the continuum of change from 1948 through 1970 to 1991 and beyond. They have strengthened the concept of needs assessment and better focusing of services and have given primacy to the needs and preferences of users and their carers.
A further major development of which the community care reforms are a manifestation is the acceptance—encapsulated in "The Health of the Nation" strategy—that health and welfare are no longer the narrowly defined provinces of the Departments of Health and of Social Security, nor are they only matters for health commissioners and providers and social services departments. Health and well-being are about addressing the holistic needs of disabled and vulnerable people.
The challenge is for agencies covering health, social care, housing, employment, education, leisure and a host of others to work together at the levels of central and local government and the community. The challenge is enormous and progress is critical to the continuing development of our policies and services. Again, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will wish to say more about that in the context of the recently announced community care development programme.
I should now turn briefly to what we believe is a further milestone on the road to full integration of disabled people: the Disability Discrimination Bill. I understand that there has been much debate about the Bill, and we shall return to it shortly when it returns from another place. Although we do not all agree on every detail of the Bill, I think there is wide acknowledgement that it will be a giant step towards ending discrimination against disabled people.
The Bill provides an armoury of weapons to tackle discrimination. For the first time, it will be unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person who is looking for a job; it will be unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person in the provision of goods, facilities and services; and it will be unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person trying to buy or rent a house or let an office or a business.
There are extensive powers to set access standards for new buses, trains and taxis. Education providers will have to furnish more information about the access arrangements that they make for disabled pupils and students. Finally, the National Disability Council will be created as an independent voice for disabled people to ensure that the Government are kept informed of how well existing measures to end discrimination are working and to recommend further steps where necessary.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, as he has done on several occasions. He has outlined the main objectives of the Disability Discrimination Bill and he will be aware that another place overturned the Government's view on the issue of definition. It would be very helpful if the Minister would explain the Government's thinking in that regard. We


would welcome the Government's acceptance of the view of the other place, which reflects the overwhelming opinion of organisations for disabled people.

Mr. Burt: Following the reverse in another place, the Government made it clear that we would be seeking a reversal of that decision here.

Mr. Clarke: Disgraceful.

Mr. Burt: It is not disgraceful. We believe that it would extend the definition far too widely. Next week, I am to meet hon. Members from both sides of the House to discuss the matter further, so I shall reserve my judgment until then. However, it would be wrong for me to suggest that our intention is any different from what I have said and from what the Government said at the time.

Mr. Dalyell: I feel rather like the bad fairy for making this intervention. The Minister referred to the legislation concerning taxis. I have caught many taxis in New Palace Yard and taxi drivers often ask me what we are doing introducing legislation that will make it much more expensive for them when they might be asked to provide disabled facilities only once or twice a year. I do not know whether that is true, but that is what I am told.
Taxi drivers also say that any disabled person who wishes to travel by taxi could telephone for a taxi and the facilities would be laid on. It does not seem very sensible to impose such facilities on every taxi in the city. I am interested to hear what the Government have to say about that.

Mr. Burt: I am tempted to let the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) deal with that intervention. Why should a disabled person be prevented from hailing a taxi on the street when a person in any other condition could hail the first taxi with a yellow light, climb in and travel to his or her destination? Why should disabled people believe that they cannot hail taxis like anyone else? We have drawn a distinction between the taxi and the private hire vehicle, but it goes to the concept of rights: that public facility is available for everyone else and a disabled person should not feel any different. It is important that disabled people should be able to hail taxis on the street and our legislation gives effect to that. I do not wish to pursue the matter further now and I think that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would agree with my general sentiment.

Mr. Dalyell: Taxi drivers tell me that they are seldom hailed by disabled people.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Because they cannot get into the taxis.

Mr. Dalyell: That may be the answer, but I think that it is important to set the matter straight.

Mr. Burt: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman's intellectually honest intervention helps the House considerably. I take his point, but in a sense his colleagues have answered his question: disabled people will not hail a taxi if they believe that they will be rebuffed. They do not want to hear the bloke in the taxi say, "Can't take you, guy." The Government have introduced that provision to ensure that all people have equal rights.
In short, I believe that the Bill's provisions commit us all to the creation of a fair, open and accessible environment for disabled people. I wish to take up the

brief intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in relation to Parliament. The Bill will require Parliament to be subject to its provisions regarding access, whereas the civil rights legislation did not make that requirement. I sincerely hope that disabled facilities in the House will improve in the meantime. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's exchange this afternoon with my right hon. Friend the Lord President, who I know intends to take up the matter. The legislation will apply to Parliament and assist with rights of access there. I hope that that is good news.

Mr. Skinner: As the Minister is in a conciliatory mood—and because he might be able to do something—will he ensure that microphone facilities are available for meetings? That is another problem. There will be further meetings, and in November a large lobby of disabled people will come to Parliament. They have asked me by letter—I have forwarded the letter to the Minister and he will see it shortly—to ensure that a portakabin is provided, as there are no proper toilet facilities for disabled people outside Parliament, and the facilities are not too good inside either.

Mr. Burt: I heard the hon. Gentleman's exchange with my right hon. Friend the Lord President this afternoon and I know that he takes those matters extremely seriously. We shall both talk to the House authorities about the facilities available to see what improvements might be made in time for the November lobby. I suspect that the problem with microphones might have had something to do with the fact that the House was sitting at the time of the meeting, but I really do not know enough about the matter. It is not my position to answer those questions, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. As Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, it is within my remit to ask questions and to try to do what I can, and I shall certainly do that.
Despite my short spell so far as Minister for disabled people, I have already met representatives of a large number of disability organisations. Whatever their justifiable position, they have all emphasised the importance of pressing ahead to implement the Bill once it has received the Royal Assent. I have been happy to reassure them that their hopes in that regard exactly match the Government's intention. I have been equally pleased to concur with their view that the successful implementation of the legislation will demand close co-operation between the Government, business and, above all, disabled people and their representatives.
Looking forward to the near future, my colleagues and I in government will be taking forward the objectives actively. The nuts and bolts of the legislation will be the detailed regulations, codes of practice and guidance. We shall begin before the end of the year by consulting widely on drafts of an employment code of practice and a guide explaining in practical terms what is meant by "disability" as defined in the Bill. The aim will be to complete the consultation and lay final versions of the code and the guide before Parliament in time for the employment rights to take effect by the end of 1996.
In the new year, I expect to have set up the National Disability Council. I shall be asking the council, as one of its first tasks, to prepare a draft code of practice on the first rights of access to goods and services that we plan to implement towards the end of 1996. Those rights will


ensure that disabled people are not refused service or offered a lower standard of service because of their disability.
At the same time as the council publishes its draft code for consultation, I expect to consult on a draft timetable for implementing the remaining rights of access. Those rights will require reasonable changes to practices which make access impossible or unreasonably difficult, the provision of auxiliary aids to facilitate access and the removal of physical barriers where an inaccessible service cannot be provided by a reasonable alternative means.
That dual consultation exercise will be the first of what I expect to be many examples of a close relationship between the Government and the council.
Disabled people and business will require a lot of information about the legislation. I confirm that we shall set up at least a telephone information line to meet those needs. We plan to discuss with disabled people and business how best to design that service.
We shall also need mechanisms to resolve disputes. The services of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service will be available to help resolve disputes about the new employment rights. We have already announced our intention of creating a special support service to help sort out disputes arising under the rights of access to goods and services in the Bill.
We envisage a service that would provide expert assistance to existing local advice points. Again, discussions with service providers and disabled people will be necessary before we finalise the details. We have not been able to go as far as we would have liked by now, as a number of organisations were not in a position fully to discuss the matter with us. When the Bill is enacted—we hope that it will be soon—we will be able to take the matter further. I regard it as an important part of ensuring that the Bill has the effectiveness and the teeth that Conservative Members want it to have. Opposition Members believe that it can work only in a different way, but I am determined to secure it in this way.
Nobody knows what the future holds, but I am confident that the measures will lead to much greater awareness of the abilities and aspirations of disabled people. The Bill will help positively to change people's attitudes and actions and allow the nation to benefit from the skills and abilities that disabled people have previously been denied the opportunity to display.
I hope that the House will continue to serve disabled people well, and in that we shall remember the contribution for a long time made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe.

Ms Liz Lynne: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new post. I also welcome the chance to debate the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which is a reminder of the progress that disabled people have made and of the work that remains to be done to secure full equal rights for them.
Looking back, it is almost unbelievable that politicians were so dismissive of disabled people. Between 1959 and 1964, there was not one debate in the House on disabled people. The 1951 Ministry of Health guidance to local authorities was not revised for the following 19 years.

Before the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, many disabled people were treated not as second-class citizens but more as non-people without any rights. Before the Act, we did not really know how many disabled people there were in Britain. We are still a bit hazy about it, but at least we have a figure—6.5 million. The Minister for Education at the time even inquired why the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) wanted to help young people and children with dyslexia. He said that the condition simply did not exist.
Before the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was implemented there was no right to cash benefits for disabled people. Non-contributory benefits as a right were barely contemplated. Local authority services were discretionary and often non-existent. Against that background, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe introduced his Bill, and I salute him for doing so. His measure challenged the arrogant and complacent people in the House who would not give disabled people their rights. It challenged the complacency of Richard Crossman, the then Labour Secretary of State for Social Services, who I understand tried to get the right hon. Gentleman to drop his Bill—thank goodness for independent Back Benchers who are willing to stand up to Ministers. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman again.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Lady is going over the top. I was the late Richard Crossman's PPS. It was not a question of complacency: there were real difficulties. I am not making a party point as the Conservative party at that time was represented by a man called Richard Wood who had a wooden leg. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House certainly did not regard the disabled as non-people. The hon. Lady should be careful about using extreme language. Of course there were matters that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) put right, but the hon. Lady should not condemn everybody at that time.

Ms Lynne: The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe fought to ensure that the Bill was enacted and, according to what I have read, Richard Crossman tried to get him to drop the Bill. It is on the record and, despite what the hon. Gentleman says, it is there in black and white.
Thank goodness for independent Back Benchers who fight against Ministers. That is what is happening now. Some Conservative Members are fighting Ministers to get more services for disabled people.

Mr. Dalyell: I cannot let this go. I was Crossman's PPS. If the hon. Lady is going to raise the subject, I have the right to put the record straight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe was asked to drop the Bill, but on the assumption that the Government would introduce a Bill of their own. That Labour Government were not heartless.

Ms Lynne: That sounds exactly like what happened last year when the Government wanted hon. Members to drop the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill because they were introducing their own Disability Discrimination Bill. I cannot see any difference.
As the Liberal Democrat social security and disability spokesperson, I should like to express my admiration of the work of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and of his initial decision, his vision and his courage. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should respect him for introducing such a wide-ranging Bill, which, for the


first time, established rights for disabled people. He has continued to fight alongside members of all political parties for civil rights for disabled people and I certainly hope that we will succeed.
The Act is a reminder of what can be done. It imposed new duties on 12 Departments of state and amended 39 Acts of Parliament. One or more sections of it have been used by 12 million disabled people. It has also been an inspiration to other countries. In 1970 we led the world in disability legislation. In 1995, even after the implementation of the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill, we shall lag behind a number of countries.
Mention must be made of the implementation of the Act. Local councils have difficulty in meeting their statutory duties under the Act, especially since the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1993, and it is not reaching the people for whom it was intended. We must fully implement the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and provide full civil rights for disabled people. That is what we are seeking.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act awakened the aspirations of disabled people and now, 25 years later, we need to push the frontiers further to build on what has been achieved and carry on the just fight for equal rights for disabled people.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: When I saw this debate on the Order Paper, it struck me that it would be one of those relatively rare occasions when there would be agreement in principle in all parts of the House—that although there would be a difference of emphasis, there would be a high degree of consensus, and that has emerged.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) took exception to what he viewed as filibustering by some of my hon. Friends. I can understand why he felt that way on entering the Chamber. As someone who had sat through the previous debate and tried to make a point of order, I must tell him that passions were running high. If he does not accept my judgment, when he reads Hansard in the morning he will see that passions were running high. My point of order was certainly not bogus, although it might have been a trifle optimistic. I assure him that there was no attempt to filibuster.
Although I do not profess to have the expertise of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) or of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), long before I entered the House I was aware that among its pioneers was the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. I was aware of him not only because of his own efforts but because my local Member of Parliament at that time was my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). There have probably been times beyond number when the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and my hon. Friend have acted in concert—very often in the same Lobby, while I was acting in concert in a different Lobby. Anyone who takes an interest in politics knows that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe has completely changed the nature of the debate, for the reasons mentioned tonight. If we disagree now, it is only over how far and how quickly one can go.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I have received a note from the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) saying that

although he had hoped to speak in this debate, his flu and throat infection have grown worse and his voice is not up to it. As the hon. Gentleman said, the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) has worked long and hard, with great distinction, over many years.

Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be happy to read those remarks. It was typical of the right hon. Gentleman that he made them.
Most Conservatives would say that the duty of the state is to look after people who cannot look after themselves, but to let everybody else get on with it. If ever there was a section of society that needs help, it is disabled people. It is said to be a moral issue, and it is. It is not so much about granting rights, which are integral, but about not withholding rights that our fellow citizens should have.
In my three years as a junior Employment Minister, I learnt that it is not only morally right to help disabled people to make the most of their potential in the workplace but that it makes good economic sense as well. For a relatively modest outlay, one can create the means for somebody to achieve their human potential and make an economic contribution as well. That was not my direct responsibility, but any hon. Member who has served in a Government will know that Ministers often double up for colleagues. I was constantly amazed that employers had not realised the amount of help available in the provision of facilities for the disabled, or had not put themselves in the position of others. What a difference that can make.
Although it makes good moral and economic sense to help disabled people, that sometimes involves massive expenditure. Some people might argue that one could not spend money on anything better, but anyone who has seen a Chief Secretary labour in a Government of either political complexion realises that it is not as easy as one might think. This year, the amount spent on helping disabled people. will rise to £19.5 billion, which is a substantial sum, and money does not grow on trees.
My hon. Friend the Minister made the point that there is no monopoly on compassion on either side of the House. To do the best that can be done, the economy must be run in such a way that it generates the required tax revenues. I do not say this in a combative way, but it is of direct relevance to the prospects of disabled people to generate the sort of money required. Constituents often write to me saying that the Government have free access to money and have only to produce some new money.
People write to me every day saying that their demands are perfectly straightforward and can be delivered by the Government—decreased taxation for them but increased expenditure in the areas of their choice. The Government are required to square that circle. Every penny that we spend on any worthwhile endeavour ultimately comes from the pockets of, for the most part, ordinary working people. Their numbers, for reasons that we need not examine this evening, are decreasing. Even as we speak, there are about 3.8 workers—in the sense of taxpayers—for every pensioner. By 2010, that figure will have fallen to 2.4 workers. We must face and wrestle with the implications. Even under this Government, taxation is too high. Whichever party is in power as we move into the next century, the decreasing body of taxpayers will place a limit on how much they are prepared to spend.
Some people may argue that the way to square the circle and help the disabled is to soak the rich—a proposal usually advanced by people who will not be among the


contributors. However, 89 per cent. of this country's tax revenues are generated by basic rate taxpayers. The hope that a crock of gold will be available from a future Government, to be tapped in a meaningful way to make a significant difference, will never materialise.
When I was in America in 1987, I spoke to a doctor about fibre-optic bypass. He told me that the technology was fast arriving to help people who fracture their spinal column—for example, in a riding accident. Provided the area of trauma is localised by applying dry ice or using other specialised techniques, it should be possible to introduce a fibre-optic bypass which, with a powerpack, should enable the injured person to function. I said to the doctor that such technology must be years ahead but he said it was only 10 to 15 years ahead. He said, "How will you function when you encounter a row of paraplegics in wheelchairs outside your constituency surgery? If your wife, son or daughter was in a wheelchair today, you would not say that you were sorry, but that public sector constraints are such that you cannot find the £10 million needed for the disabled." He was right. I would not say that to a member of my family.
That technology may not be with us yet, but when it comes it will put a great strain on the resources of the Government of the day. Some pretty hard choices will have to be made. Although cliches make people groan, their good feature is that they fulfil a useful task because they usually encapsulate a truth, the sight of which is all too easy to lose. Against that background, I say that it will be a question of balance. That will always be the position when it comes to determining the amount that we can afford to expend. We must also consider how far we can take the public with us.
In that sense I was much impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the hon. Gentleman is an honourable man who is capable of bringing us up with a jolt in ways that we do not expect. He referred to London taxis. I think that I am right in saying—this is the figure in my mind—that only three of 100,000 taxi rides in London are taken by disabled people. An argument quickly developed.
Those who take what might be considered to be a cynical attitude might have thought that the hon. Gentleman was a hard-hearted Tory and that my hon. Friend the Minister, in fulfilling a most unusual task for him, was a warm-hearted liberal. But the point was made. In effect, there were two debates. There was the human-right approach of saying, "I may want only to make the occasional trip in a taxi but why cannot I hail a cab like anyone else?" There was also the question of practicality. A London cab driver would have to have an extremely expensive piece of equipment. I am told that it would be the equivalent—taxi drivers talk a great deal when one rides in their cabs—of taking out a large mortgage on a house. We must examine the morality, if that it can be called, of forcing taxi drivers, for example, to kit up to such an extent when the facility may not be used.
I have in mind two examples that I am sure are mirrored in constituencies throughout the country. Two buildings in my constituency, to which the public have access, had to have a substantial lift for disabled people as a condition of planning permission. So far, so good.

We can all agree with that provision because it sounds entirely right. However, the lifts have never been used. In one instance, for reasons that I shall not go into on the Floor, it would be inconceivable that a lift designed for use by disabled people would ever be used. In the other instance, there has been no call for the lift. That lift has not been hidden away. That can be said in both instances. Indeed, the owners of the premises, having spent the money on the lifts, say, "Would it not be a good thing if the lifts could be used?"
The attitude of the business men who had to install the lifts has not been affected. We should pause to reflect, however. Is there an argument that will have to be taken on board in due course? It is that there is a human right to use such a lift if a disabled person wants to do so. In the end, however, are we entitled to say that it does not matter whether the lift is used, or may never be used, because a point of principle is involved? Points of principle are easier to establish in the end if someone else is paying the bill.
What I am about to say might be judged as slightly opportunistic. If it is, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will write. I received visits this week, as well as letters, from representatives of Mencap. They are drawing attention to the fact that they are about to be charged for the provision of day services by local authorities. Letters are outstanding from my hon. Friend the Minister on that subject. I do not at present understand the practicalities. It would be interesting to know more about the matter.
The idea that there is a monopoly of compassion in one area is one that ultimately would not attract support. When there is an almost empty Chamber, it is sometimes tempting to ask, "Who takes an interest in what we say?" I have sometimes been heartened and on other occasions warmed by the number of people who write to tell me that they have read my contributions to debates in Hansard. For those who take an interest in these matters, the reading of a Hansard debate will be as interesting if the Chamber is poorly attended or is full. There is no doubt about that. We must take into account the reputation of the House and the confidence of our constituents that we are fulfilling a useful function.
Although the debate has not been without humour and a degree of point scoring, that has not been the entirety. I speak from a Conservative perspective even though there is a high degree of consensus. I suppose that the best statement of what I regard as my position and of what might be achieved might read as follows:
In the field of social security the Conservatives can offer a decent prospect for the future because Conservatives have policies that will prevent inflation eating up social benefits and foster new prosperity to pay for better welfare. Conservatives are committed to a fair society and a caring society. Conservatives have greatly improved help for the most vulnerable people in our society. The poorest pensioners' incomes have risen 15 per cent. and 5 million pensions will receive cash increases of about 10 per cent.
Those are matters of fact and not of partisan point scoring in the sense that one is denying that others would have sufficient compassion. The statements that are contained within the quotation encapsulate two vital features. First, they accept that Conservatives are as committed as the members of any other party would be to do their best to care for people for whom they have a responsibility as fellow citizens. Secondly, we have enough confidence in our fiscal policies to think that we are generating taxable income.
It is often said that plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. I suppose that politicians are wont to raid one another's speeches to find elegant words to make particular points. I think that the words that I have quoted are magnificent. They stand as a fine testament and they are as valid now as when they were included in the previous two election addresses of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth).

Mr. Colin Pickthall: First, I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on his Bill as it then was, which was 25 years ago, and on the 25 years of consistent work that he has since done. It is a delight to see him still slogging away at it. I congratulate the Minister on his new job and on escaping from his previous one. He looks extremely happy about that escape. In his absence, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his new post in the shadow Cabinet. It is a significant appointment, and a symbolic one.
The Minister was right to say that we, the Opposition, cannot claim all the credit. Not even my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe can do that. Equally, the Government cannot claim credit for all the advances that have been made in responding to the needs of disabled people in the past two decades.
The greatest credit should go to disabled people. They have been battling away, especially during the past few years, to find new ways of publicising what they are doing. They have been securing tremendous public support. The same can be said of carers. Disabled people and carers have been lobbying, writing letters and generally making sure that Members know what is going on and are aware of the pressures they face. They have also been chaining themselves to buses and been rescued by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
There is no doubt that advances have been made in upholding and extending the rights of disabled people. Unfortunately, many questions remain unanswered. I hope that they will be taken up by the next Labour Government. I have in mind the question that was put to me yesterday—not for the first time—in my constituency by Rene Harding, who attended a lobby at Parliament. Why should she, on becoming a pensioner at 60 years of age, have her carer's allowance removed? She looks after her adult daughter, who is severely disabled and a wheelchair user. Rene has to do everything for her daughter. When Rene is getting on in years and finding these tasks ever harder, she is deemed by the system not to need so much help. That is a farce and an insult. There are many quirks within the benefit system on which we must continue to concentrate with a view to ironing them out.
The lobby that Rene Harding attended focused on local authority charging policies for day care centres, and the failure of Government properly to fund care in the community. Those who attended were confronted by an illustration of what disabled people face. That has already been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Monklands, West and for Bolsover. I shall mention it briefly, because I believe that it is a matter for Madam Speaker rather than the Minister.
A great deal of effort was made to assist the people attending the lobby. Although they could not use the Grand Committee Room, which they had booked, they managed to secure Westminster Hall, which was set up as a proper lobby, with Doorkeepers, a green card system, chairs, gas heaters to make the place vaguely habitable, and so on. The staff of the House did a great deal, as did hon. Members, to assist.
I witnessed the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who managed more or less to make herself heard, unlike some others. Hon. Members had to bellow to make themselves heard to many people who were hard of hearing, among other problems. It was simply impossible to be heard. I believe that the ruling that a public address system cannot be used in Westminster Hall is a matter for the Speaker, and so I place it on record and hope that Madam Speaker will look at that and ensure that it does not happen again in future.
I want to make one rather specialist point: it is rather different from what has been raised before. My colleagues, and Conservative Members, have made the case on behalf of disabled people extremely cogently, but during the debates on the Disability Discrimination Bill and the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), we returned again and again to discrimination against those who have the reputation of being disabled. In particular, it was of concern to many Labour Members that perfectly capable people could be discriminated against because of, say, genetic conditions—being HIV positive and many other reasons.
It was clear that employers and others can and do discriminate against such people on the grounds that they might at some stage in future he ill or require time off. That seemed to us not only unfair in itself, but something that prevents people from being productive. It prevents them from being independent individuals, and forces them into dependency. During Report stage of the Disability Discrimination Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) raised a new dimension when he pointed out that diabetes could be included in the argument.
That struck a strong chord with me, because I happen to be an insulin-dependent diabetic. Up until that point—at my advanced age—I had never thought of myself as disabled, although I must say that, shortly after being elected in 1992, I was contacted by the makers of a television programme, who said that they were making a feature programme on disabled Members of Parliament, and wanted me to participate on behalf of the Labour party. I was somewhat surprised, and declined, telling them that I was not disabled and that there must be some mistake. Since then, I have had cause to rethink the matter, partly thanks to my hon. Friend here.
There are many aspects of diabetes that do not properly fit into this debate, and I shall not weary the House with them. It is important, however, to remind the House that diabetes affects about 2 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom. There are 750,000 diagnosed, and an estimated 250,000 undiagnosed, diabetics. Some 18,000 of those diagnosed are under 20, and therefore have to live the remainder of their lives with the condition. Some 60,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. Of all cases, about a quarter are insulin-dependent.
The difficulty of the condition, briefly, is that the diabetic has to balance an artificial intake of insulin with diet and exercise. Getting the balance wrong can lead to


hypoglycaemia—a sudden reduction of blood sugar levels, which can affect brain and body co-ordination, sometimes quite badly. It can also lead to hyperglycaemia, which is less dangerous but can be very damaging over time. Obviously, these can be serious disabilities and can lead to terrible complications, such as kidney failure, amputations, heart disease and so on in the longer term.
The health service and many individuals put a great deal of time and care into ensuring that the correct balance is maintained and that these problems do not arise. The types of insulin and their method of delivery have been immensely improved over time, particularly in the past 20 years, and knowledge and expertise are much greater.
The key point is that a well-balanced diabetic has regular blood and eye checks, has a better diet, tends to take more sensible exercise—I do not include myself in all this, by the way—and is acutely aware—nor do I include myself in this—of his or her body, its failings and functions. In essence, he or she is likely to be, in almost every respect bar one, healthier and better tuned than fellow citizens without diabetes, yet the moment insulin-dependent diabetes is diagnosed, car insurance is usually increased, it becomes much more difficult to get a mortgage or life insurance, driving licences have to be applied for every three years, and many job application forms demand declaration of the condition.
Therefore, immediately, for thousands of people a year who become insulin-dependent diabetics and are struggling to adapt to quite a traumatic experience, many extra difficulties are flung at them by the system. In a sense, they are fortunate, but they are a microcosm of what happens to a large number of people with disabilities of all kinds.
The people who are most discriminated against are those whose employment is terminated and permanently denied by their becoming insulin-dependent diabetics. This, I believe, is a problem that has been neglected by all the debates and legislation on disability discrimination that have come before the House. Obviously, I accept a large share of blame for that.
For example, a constituent of mine, Thomas Wright, was a heavy goods vehicle driver from 1979 to 1984, when he contracted insulin-dependent diabetes. When his licence became due for renewal the following year, it was denied. He has been unable to work as an HGV driver ever since, even though his former employer is still, after all these years, active on his behalf to secure his licence again. Oddly, he is able to drive a minibus full of people should he so wish, but he cannot continue his career as an HGV driver.
There are many complications to Mr. Wright's story, with communications with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and so on, but the main point is that he has good control of his diabetes. He is well balanced and has a clean medical record from his doctor and specialist. The regulation that prevents him from pursuing his trade is, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who represents the Whips on the Conservative Benches, will be pleased to hear, a European one. It was passed in 1991. It is absolute, in that it takes no account of the individual's health record. In my view, it is wrong and discriminatory. There is a risk, certainly, in a diabetic driving any sort of vehicle, just as there is from people driving with hundreds of different medications, and people with heart disease and many other conditions.
Secondly, my friend, Mr. Tim Hoy, from Willesden, London, acquired insulin-dependent diabetes while a serving firefighter, a job which he loved, and he was instantly removed from active service. He was found another job in an office, but he has lost the career he enjoyed. He has written a book on the experience of diabetics in a variety of jobs and the difficulties that they face, which is shortly to be published.
Gary Cooper, of Christchurch, had a similar experience with the Dorset fire brigade, and his Member of Parliament has been active on his behalf. Mr. David Stevens, of Romsey in Hampshire, although insulin-dependent, was able to pass his medical to be a firefighter, but cannot be a firefighter because he cannot obtain a licence to drive a fire engine, which is a heavy goods vehicle.
All those men are physically fit, and even athletic. They control their diabetes well and have medical experts who are prepared to go into print to back them. However, all have been excluded from their careers. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) about the economic activity of disabled people; it is tremendously important, because there are many who, if it were not for discrimination, could be economically active, and therefore cease to be dependent and be more satisfied in their own life.
My last example is Ian Billsborough of Preston. He was a probationary police constable in the Lancashire force. He had done almost two years' probation when his career was terminated because he became an insulin-dependent diabetic. Despite his personal sympathy, the chief constable reported to me:
All the medical officers have unanimously concluded that diabetes is a condition that bars any applicant from joining the constabulary.
That is nonsense. He continued:
Mr. Billsborough could not, because of his condition, meet the requirement that he is fitted both physically and mentally to perform the duties of the office of constable.
That is despite the fact that there has been at least one insulin-dependent diabetic England international footballer.
Those are judgments by the EC, the Department of Transport, the fire brigade and the police service which are completely arbitrary and based on fear.
The inclusion of insulin-dependent diabetics in our anti-discrimination philosophy would mean that the individual medical case would be the prime matter for consideration. It would mean that discriminatory insurance premiums could be challenged. It would help to fulfil the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's avowed policy of getting as many individuals as possible driving again, including insulin-dependent diabetics and those suffering from conditions such as epilepsy or petit mal. Above all, it would mean that hundreds of men and women in key professions with essential expertise could continue to serve society, rather than rely on benefits.
I realise that I have pushed the parameters of the debate a little too far in one direction, but diabetes is a problem which is relatively neglected by the Department of Health—that is a subject for a different debate—and is being mishandled, piecemeal, by a variety of Departments. Its inclusion in a future Labour-led disabled people's rights Bill would correct many injustices and serve the country well.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I join in the congratulations to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in celebrating the 25th anniversary of his Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill, which became an Act in 1970.
In 1986, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) also had the satisfaction of seeing a private Member's Bill go on to the statute book. No doubt he has marked his diary for the year 2011 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of that.
I had the satisfaction of getting a private Member's Bill on to the statute book this summer which I hope will help tenants of commercial premises, and I shall be marking my diary to make sure that that is appropriately celebrated in 25 years' time.
I had not realised until recently that it was the 1970 Act which led to the formation of the all-party parliamentary disablement group, which is one of the most active of the all-party groups. I very much welcome being a member of that group and an officer for some years now. It has brought together many common interests from both sides of the House. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) cannot be here, because I believe that he was a founder member of that group back in 1970, and has therefore served it for many years.
The Disability Discrimination Bill is currently going through Parliament. The all-party group can claim much credit for that, and although it does not have all the features which Opposition Members may have wanted, much credit is due to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), for the way in which he introduced it. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), all success in seeing that Bill through its final stages on to the statute book. It will make a big difference.
I particularly want to address my remarks tonight to the employment of disabled persons. It is right that we should be scrapping the quota, which never was a satisfactory approach. There are some 900,000 disabled persons in work, only perhaps 300,000 of whom are registered, and there are another 300,000 disabled people who are looking for work. We can do a great deal more to help those people to get into work.
I have recently been examining the workings of the supported employment scheme, which benefits some 21,500 disabled persons. They have been helped into jobs at a cost to the Exchequer that is put at £153 million a year, although I query that figure. I should certainly like the amount spent on the scheme to be increased—and, if we accept the figures that are tucked away at the back of the Remploy annual accounts, that would not involve any net cost to the Treasury.
If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot respond to my point this evening, perhaps he will find out whether I can be given written confirmation of the Government's full agreement to the method of calculation shown in the Remploy annual accounts. As the Government own the company, they presumably agree with that method of calculation.
Some interesting figures are tucked away in those accounts which I had not noticed until recently. I looked at the figures shown for five years and at the latest figure. The deficit—the excess of expenditure over income—is

shown as £91 million in Remploy's most recent accounts, but under that figure is the company's estimate of the net cost after
flowback and savings to the Exchequer.
That is shown as only £14 million; so somewhere there must be a detailed calculation showing that £77 million flows back to the Exchequer in what are described as net costs and savings.
I should like to know more about how the figure was calculated. It works out at £8,651 for each of the 8,900 disabled people employed by Remploy. If such benefits flow back to the Exchequer as a result of the employment of a disabled person who would not otherwise be employed, why do we not put more money into the supported employment scheme?
The voluntary placement aspect, which is illustrated very well in the work done by the Shaw Trust, costs only £4,500 per placement. Surely, if £4,500 can be spent to help a disabled person into work and if—according to the Remploy figures—that results in a saving of £8,600 to the Exchequer, the more we do the better, because an overall "profit" will result.
It seems that the more we spend the more we save. What is limiting the scheme? I should be very interested to know whether the Remploy figures are fully supported by the Treasury and other Government Departments, and, if so, exactly how they are calculated and whether the same calculation could be applied to people on the supported employment scheme. That strikes me as a good argument for taking the brakes off supported employment as a whole, which costs a total of some £153 million.
I commend the work done by the Shaw Trust, which now helps some 2,200 people into jobs at a cost of no more than £4,500 per person this year. Its £8.5 million grant is therefore very valuable, and questions are raised when that is compared with the cost of employing people through Remploy. Remploy has been expanding what is known as its "interwork scheme", for which the target this year is for 2,000 people to be employed. It seems that Remploy is acting in a similar way to the Shaw Trust, as a kind of job agency—at a similar cost of £4,500 per person per year.
There are, however, substantial costs for the factory workers who are employed in Remploy's 87 factories. The figures I have show that the cost of subsidising a job in those factories is now more than £12,000 a year for the 7,200 people who constitute this year's target. Those costs are substantially above those of the supported employment scheme—I would estimate, about £56 million this year. That would be enough to provide for 12,000 more jobs, at a cost of £4,500 each. If we take Remploy's calculations, that would give to the Treasury a total flowback of more than £100 million. If Remploy could operate more effectively and employ another 12,000 people on the same costings as, for instance, the Shaw Trust, the benefit to the Treasury would amount to more than £100 million.
One must ask: why is that not happening? I have been preparing a report, to be published by the Social Market Foundation on, I hope, 13 November, to explore ways in which Remploy could operate more effectively, so that more disabled people could be helped into jobs. Taking Remploy's own figures, it would not be at any greater cost to the Treasury; in fact, there might even be savings.
I would welcome having discussions with all interested parties. I know that the hon. Member for Monklands, West is interested in Remploy factories, and that he has visited factories in the north-west, and no doubt elsewhere. I would be interested in having discussions with him and with trade union representatives.
Only a few weeks ago, I had a useful and helpful meeting with Mr. David Martin of the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades, together with three employees of the Bolton Remploy factory: Mr. Bill Hardman, Ms Marlene Lockley and Mr. Trevor Wilson. I should be pleased to have further meetings with employees and with trade union representatives to discuss ways in which Remploy could operate more effectively.
The arguments that I am advancing in my report are along the lines that we could consider Remploy as an employee-owned trust, moving it out of the Government's direct control as a publicly owned business. It would be better for the employees, and for other disabled people who could also benefit if Remploy were more effective, to make it into an employee-owned trust, with a responsibility for entering into partnership agreements with other organisations. That would effectively help the management of the businesses to make Remploy run more effectively, bringing in the full resources of the private sector, and perhaps other organisations if they could help to partner existing factories.
Remploy has some 87 factories. One or two have closed recently and a danger exists that there could be more factory closures unless Remploy is run much more effectively. I should like those factories' future to be secured by Remploy entering into partnership arrangements with other organisations.
I am not in any way suggesting that I do not want Remploy to succeed and prosper: it is for that very reason that I am preparing the pamphlet. Many more disabled people could be helped into jobs if Remploy were able to use its substantial subsidy, which comes to some £94 million a year. It is a massive subsidy for an organisation whose turnover is only about £140 million a year. The subsidy is greater than the wages bill for the disabled employees, which raises questions about how Remploy could need such a massive subsidy.
I therefore would not argue that less money should be spent in helping disabled people into work. As I said, I should like more money spent on that, but it should be spent more effectively than it is now, so that the flowback savings to the Exchequer, if those figures can be substantiated, would be even greater.
That was the gist of what I wanted to concentrate on. This has been an interesting debate. We have been able to look back. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), in her speech, much of which I support, said that we should build on what has been achieved. That is very much how we should be considering the matter today. We should be looking ahead so that we can build on the 25 years of achievement since the Bill of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe reached the statute book.
Politics is a funny old business, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I suspect that, if he captures your eye, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) may make what would be a maiden speech from the Opposition Benches. If that is the case, I should like to obey the

conventions of the House and welcome it. I think that it was the former right hon. Member for Waveney, now Lord Prior, who once told me that he thought that all the ills of the nation could be ascribed to the adversarial nature of the Chamber.
I cannot accept my former hon. Friend's arguments, as I have read them, for joining the Labour party, and I am sorry that we find ourselves on opposite sides of the Chamber. Perhaps if the Chamber were a different shape, or even if there were Cross Benches as there are in the other place, there might not have been quite such a divide to separate us. In any event, I think that there is much common ground between us on this subject.
I think that my argument that we should he spending more money on the sheltered employment scheme to increase flowback savings to the Treasury and thus benefit society as a whole by enabling more disabled people to work and make a full contribution to society will be accepted by all parties, and I hope that, when my pamphlet is published by the Social Market Foundation, it too will receive cross-party support.

Mr. Ray Powell: It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate in recognition of the tremendous amount of work that has been done in the past 25 years in obtaining rights for disabled people. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) appreciates that in this country and internationally he is known as someone who has established rights for the disabled. As the president of a large disabled group that meets every Sunday in the Ogmore constituency, I can assure him that the Act that he introduced and the subsequent related measures to provide facilities for disabled people over the past 25 years have been greatly appreciated.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) that there is unity among the parties about the need to provide facilities for the disabled. In previous debates, we have rightly asked how we can pretend to legislate for the disabled when, although they can perhaps enter the mother of Parliaments, they cannot get to the Grand Committee Room or various other rooms.
Members of the Accommodation and Works Committee have met officers of the all-party group on disablement several times to try to deal with the justifiable criticism levelled in the Chamber at the House itself for not providing the necessary facilities to enable disabled people to have access to most rooms in it. In answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 8 February this year I, in my capacity as Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, outlined some of the projects that the Committee was pursuing to assist disabled people to gain access to the Palace of Westminster. I should like to take this opportunity to inform the House what progress has been made since then.
During the summer recess, we continued to implement many of the improvements recommended by experts to try to make the House more accessible. The new entrance that has been created in Black Rod's Garden enables people in wheelchairs to go directly to the start of the Line of Route. A ramp has been constructed at the entrance to Speaker's House giving access to the North Door. The ramps in Star Chamber Court allow access for people in


wheelchairs to the Strangers' Gallery via lift No. 1. The new ramp at the Medals Corridor enables them to go on to the Terrace, to the private dining rooms, and, via lift No. 15, to the Principal Floor and Committee Rooms. That lift has been specially adapted to include such features as relocated control panels, with embossed and illuminated buttons, hand rails to the sides and rear of each car and door edges with time-delay sensors. Lift No. 3 serving the Peers Gallery and lift No. 17 serving Speaker's House have been similarly adapted, as has one in the other place.
Modifications to lavatories have been carried out and there are now specially adapted facilities on each floor in the following locations: the Centre Curtain Corridor, the Lower Waiting Hall, opposite Committee Room 7 on the main Committee Corridor and opposite Committee Room 19 on the Upper Committee Corridor.
In addition, a continuous handrail has been ordered for installation on the Strangers Staircase and a platform lift is shortly to be installed to take people in wheelchairs from Westminster Hall to the Grand Committee Room. In time we hope to install a proper lift there as part of the plans for a visitor centre.
Altogether, in the Palace of Westminster, some £688,000 is to be spent this financial year on facilities for disabled people. I am confident that, now that statement is recorded, hon. Members will read it and know that they can advise some of their visitors who are disabled on the extra facilities that have been made available.
I am very glad to be able to give that report. Indeed, even more funds have already been made available so that there will be greater access to facilities for the disabled in the House. I hope that in future there will be less criticism of the facilities that we are planning and, indeed, introducing as a result of the joint efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Alan Howarth: After a day of deeply felt antagonism across the Chamber, it is good that hon. Members from both sides of the House can come together to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I happily join others on both sides of the House in paying my tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). It was a rare, creative achievement in politics to introduce that Bill and bring it to the statute book. His dedication on the Front Bench and the Back Benches to the cause of disabled people has never subsequently flagged.
The 1970 Act was an epoch-making measure and so too could be the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill if they would but accept amendments tabled in another place, and if they would, even at this late stage, be willing to fill what are major gaps in the legislation.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act originated as a private Member's Bill, as has the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The difference is of course that the 1970 Bill was supported by the Government, following the negotiations of which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has told us something.
The Government could have been constructive in their approach to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, but they were not. Of course there is a deep difference of principle embodied in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons)

Bill to differentiate it from the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill. The former is comprehensive in its reach, as was the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill.
I take it that it should be axiomatic for all parties and for a Government of any party in this country that it is our obligation between us all to do everything that we can to promote equal civil rights for everyone and, as far as possible, equal opportunities. It saddens me that the Conservative party and the Government have been equivocal in that regard.
I hasten to say, however, that I exempt from that charge the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). I am also quite certain that all those who know the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People know that his heart is very much in the right place concerning the cause of disabled people. I know that the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) also did all that he could to advance the frontiers of the legislation during its passage over the past year. Let me add my tribute to the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and to my former hon. Friend and, I trust, my continuing personal friend, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who has just told us eloquently of his hopes for sheltered employment.
Over the past 12 months or more, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry set their grim faces obstinately against allowing this legislation to be as generous and far-reaching as it should be. I fear that they were backed by Conservative Members, all too many of whose hackles always rise at the very mention of equal opportunities. Part of the Government's objection is that they have a great dislike for rights-based legislation because it allows powers of interpretation and scope to judges to check the Executive, which this House all too often lamentably fails to do. The Government pass a torrent of secondary legislation that is not debated, which allows loosely defined powers to the Executive, and the Disability Discrimination Bill will be no exception to that pattern.
The Government's dislike of rights-based legislation and of the intervention of judges has been demonstrated all too clearly in their opposition to incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic law. This Session, I tabled a private Member's Bill that would achieve that. I felt strongly about the extraordinary complaints made by the Deputy Prime Minister about the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
The logic of the Government's position is that they should repeal the equal opportunities legislation passed 20 years ago in the fields of gender and race. But if they are prepared to be fair minded, they must recognise that that legislation has led to enormous improvements in our culture and practical advances in our society on the issue of discrimination. They must accept that that legislation should provide a model for legislation to ban discrimination against disabled people.
The cost of equal opportunities legislation has not proved onerous, as the Conservative party may have feared. It was a great pity that the Government's tactics for seeing off the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill meant producing disinformation. They alleged that the measure would have cost £17 billion over five years. That was a shoddy and dishonest piece of work. The best cost-benefit analysis that I saw tabulated the cost at some £5 billion before taking account of the benefits. When one


takes into account the benefits arising from the contribution of disabled people to our economy, I believe that the net cost would have been nil.
So far from the Government being willing to accept modest costs, they have been cutting back on their expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled. That is utterly unacceptable. Conservative Members have mixed feelings about claiming that, during the life of this Government, there has been a 75 per cent. increase in social expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled. But the Government now seek vigorously—they have already legislated to that end—to reduce expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled. Invalidity benefit has been cut back in the transition from invalidity to incapacity benefit. The Government mismanaged the economy over a period and ran up an enormous public sector borrowing requirement. The retrenchment that they were driven to undertake was to be paid for in part by the long-term sick and disabled. Some six volumes of research were produced by the Department of Social Security, none of which supported their contention that there was wholesale abuse of that benefit and that money was being squandered on it unjustifiably.
Now the Conservative party clamours for tax cuts at a time when the needs of the disabled are not being met and support in important areas is being diminished.
I believe that the Education Act 1993 is an important and beneficial measure in the interests of children with special educational needs for which the Government deserve credit, in particular the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). The code of practice in the legislation could be an instrument for much good. I speak as a vice-president of the British Dyslexia Association. We know that there are some 300,000 dyslexic children, notwithstanding the 25 years during which Whitehall denied the existence of dyslexia. What we and those children need is to have their dyslexia identified earlier, at the age of five, say, rather than at 15. We need therefore proper investment in in-service training for teachers, particularly special educational needs co-ordinators. Of course we also need better resources for statements so that the process of statementing children with educational needs ceases to be a miserable process of attrition characterised by disingenuousness on the part of local education authorities, which use every technical excuse as a smokescreen to disguise the fact that they are not willing, because they are not able, to spend money on statements, and characterised by antagonism and heartbreak for parents and their children.
The Government have also caused charges for disabled people to increase enormously. We have seen a massive percentage increase in charges under the community care policy which have hit frail and poor people in a most shaming way. There is a lack of central guidance and therefore a lack of local consistency and fairness. Benefits for disabled people are set centrally, but they have not been increased to take account of those charges.
The Minister mentioned the National Assistance Act 1948, which was, of course, a great reforming measure. It does, however, contain within it an important stumbling block—the bar on social services departments making cash payments to disabled people rather than providing benefits in kind.
The Minister spoke of the Government's desire to lessen the dependence of disabled people, but it has taken a very long time for the Government to commit themselves to act to open the way to direct payments. I greatly welcome the fact that that commitment was made a year ago. It is over a year since I sent to the then Secretary of State for Health a model scheme drawn up by social services directors and others to show how direct payments might effectively be implemented. I hope very much that the Queen's Speech will contain the legislation that has been promised and that it will be a wholehearted and positive measure.
I must say a further word about the Disability Discrimination Bill. It was unfortunate that it was a piecemeal measure and that concessions had to be dragged out of the Government during its passage. I hope very much that the Government will now be willing to accept amendments, for example the amendment on perception, which was eloquently spoken of by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall). If an employer thinks that a person is disabled, although he or she is not, or if an employer anticipates that a person may become disabled, it cannot be justified for that employer to discriminate on those grounds. The evil against which we seek to act is that prejudice. I hope very much that even at this stage the Government will be willing to accept that the legislation must establish the principle unequivocally that discrimination itself is an unacceptable practice.
There are still large defects in the legislation. The definitions are a shambles and will, notwithstanding the Government's intention, be a lawyers' charter. It is wholly unacceptable that it will be permissible under the legislation for employers of fewer than 20 people to discriminate. It is wrong that it should be within the law for a person to be discriminated against because of where he or she happens to work.
Perhaps most importantly, it is imperative that the Government agree that there should be a disability rights commission. No one wants litigation, but there will not be legal aid so it will be difficult for disabled people to avail themselves of the rights that the legislation purports to create. Notwithstanding what the Minister told the House earlier, there are no credible arrangements for the provision of advice to employers, providers of goods and services and disabled people themselves. Ultimately, there needs to be an agency with power to investigate and to enforce. That is what we have under the race and gender legislation, and so we should under the legislation that we are discussing.
If we do not, the Government's intentions will merely be a matter of minimal concessions rather than a measure born out of a positive and generous will to help disabled people. Disabled people and decent people expect no less.

Mr. Alfred Morris: For me, our proceedings in this debate are reminiscent of those which in 1970 led to the enactment of my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill. The House of Commons was never more constructive in its concern for people in special need of its attention than it was then. There was no party animus in our proceedings. Everyone who spoke seemed to know the value of things as well as their cost
One of the penalties of longevity in parliamentary life—I have now had two and a half times the average stay in the House—is the loss by attrition of close and valued colleagues. The longer one survives here, the more colourful and crowded one's gallery of old and trusted friends. Many of the most honoured in my own gallery are those who laboured with me to enact my Bill in 1970. They were not all of one party. They were of all parties, but of one mind.
What united them was the shared determination that Parliament must no longer ignore the rightful claims of long-term sick and disabled people—that they must be free to live their own lives as normally as possible, to have the same opportunities to contribute to industry and society as everyone else—and that the law affecting them must be based on rights and not on charity. I am grateful to the Minister for recalling that expression of my view in the speech with which I presented my Bill in December 1969.
The Back Benchers who worked most closely with me to enact the Bill included Jack Ashley, John Astor, Lewis Carter-Jones, Sir Clive Bossom, Laurie Pavitt and Sir Neil Marten. Outside the House, my collaborators included Duncan Guthrie, who then headed both RADAR's predecessor, the Central Council for the Disabled, and Action Research; Peter Large, as he then was, of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled and of the Disablement Income Group; Mary Greaves, who led DIG after the death of Megan du Boisson; and Mary Stott, a columnist on The Guardian.
No one gave me more practical help than the late Duncan Guthrie and today's debate is a timely occasion to pay renewed tribute to his memory. Flexible of mind, he was a man of transparent decency and inflexible integrity, and he is mourned by everyone who had the privilege of knowing him.
This debate would not be taking place but for the commitment to making life better for disabled people on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). I am most grateful to them both. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for his characteristically kind speech. I most warmly congratulate him on the distinction that he has achieved by his re-election to the shadow Cabinet yesterday. He was followed tonight by many other hon. Members who made distinguished contributions to what inevitably for me has been a moving parliamentary occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall), the hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) all made memorable speeches. To my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore I want to express the appreciation of disabled people and their organisations for his tireless and outstanding work in making this Palace so very much more accessible to disabled people. I thank him on their behalf for all that he has achieved.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon I want simply to recall that this is not the first time I have referred to him as my hon. Friend. I have done so often over the three years we have worked together, in Committee and elsewhere, to achieve enforceable civil rights for disabled people. I found his constancy to their

cause wholly admirable. I honour him deeply, and he has honoured us today by making his maiden speech from the Opposition side of the House in this debate.
For Back Benchers, first place in the ballot for private Members' Bills is the most coveted prize in the lottery of parliamentary life. Ministers whose Departments are affected by the Back Benchers' choices of Bills may not, however, share their delight at winning the ballot. I have to confide to the House that Richard Crossman, then Secretary of State for Social Services, who was to become an undeviating supporter of my choice, was not best pleased when he heard in November 1969 that I intended to use my good fortune to present a Bill to enhance the well-being and status of disabled people. He offered an alternative measure—a human tissues Bill, drafted by the Government. I am glad to tell the House today that it was my good and hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), although he was too modest to say so in his interventions, who pressed and persuaded Dick Crossman to recognise that I was totally resolved at least to try to legislate on disability.
Dick was not alone among Ministers who initially wanted me to drop the whole idea. The Minister of State for Education inquired why I was proposing to include in the Bill help for people with dyslexia—a condition which, he said, "simply doesn't exist." To which I was provoked to reply, "Then it won't cost you anything." Official reaction to my proposals for helping deaf-blind children and those with autism, like my proposal for an institute of hearing research, was no more supportive; so the Bill's prospects looked anything but promising.
It seems incredible and outrageous now, but from 1945 to 1964 there was no mention in any party manifesto of anything specifically to help disabled people. Between 1959 and 1964, as the hon. Member for Rochdale recalled, there was not one parliamentary debate on disability. Westminster and Whitehall always had more pressing things to do than to respond to the claims of people with disabilities. One could say that the attitude of both was one of serene satisfaction with the status quo. No one even knew how many disabled people there were in Britain. They were mostly seen or heard only by their families or, if they were in institutions, by those who controlled their lives.
Even to talk then of as-of-right cash benefits for disabled people or for the carer of a disabled relative was to invite ridicule. Local authority services were wholly discretionary and often non-existent. I knew of disabled people with every kind of moral justice on their side, but no statutory right whatever to vitally needed help.
That was how things were when, against all the odds, my Bill became law in May 1970. Those who worked with me to enact the Bill will remember how often and how close we came to disaster. But in the end it was Dick Crossman's main Bill of that parliamentary Session which hit the rocks while ours sailed safely by.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill became an Act of 29 sections. It imposed new duties and responsibilities on 12 Departments of state and became the model for legislation in many other countries. It amended 39 existing Acts of Parliament in the interests of disabled people, including such major statutes as the Education Act 1944, the National Health Service Act 1946, the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Housing Act 1957.
In the decade after the Bill's enactment huge leaps were recorded in the numbers of disabled people identified as disabled; millions were helped by the provision of aids, by adaptations to their homes and by the Act's five sections on access to the built environment, the first such legislation anywhere in the world. The research division of the House of Commons Library estimates that, at the latest date for which figures are available, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West has said, there were 12 million cases of assistance under section 2 of the Act in England alone, while in Scotland, over a shorter period, there were 1.7 million cases. Those are minimal figures since, to give just one example, they do not include the 1.3 million orange badge holders in England, under section 21 of the Act, and countless millions more beneficiaries, here and abroad, of its access provisions.
Public spending on related benefits and services went up from £330 million to £3.03 billion in the Act's first decade—between 1970 and 1980. But its effects went wider than its impact on statutory provision. There was now a wholly new emphasis on the importance of the statutory and voluntary sectors working together and many new organisations, often for disabled people, were created.
I take especial pleasure in this being also the 25th anniversary of the British Dyslexia Association and am most encouraged that the first ever statutory references to dyslexia in the law—and to autism—have led to so much progress towards better provision in those areas of need. I very much support the argument that investment in teacher training for special needs is an appropriate way to continue that progress.
As our understanding of these different disabilities grows, so does the need for professionals, including teachers, to be trained in identification and support of dyslexic children and those with other special needs. The challenges facing the teachers in a mainstream school classroom are immense. We must equip them to cope with the diversity and range of special needs. Both initial teacher training and in-service training are vitally important here.
The challenge does not stop at the school gate, however. Legislation and provision for adults with difficulties need now to catch up with the legislative framework that exists in education. Just because a disability is not obvious does not mean that it cannot be severe and disabling. The person without command of the written word and number is disabled from taking an effective part in society. I hope that the work to follow up the Government's poor imitation of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will include all categories of disability, including the hidden handicap of dyslexia.
At first, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act lost some momentum due to the lack of clear ministerial guidance. Many people thought that, as it had been a private Member's Bill, it lacked the force of Government legislation. In fact, the Act was described by some local councils as a "private Member's Act". There is, of course, no such thing; but it was responsible for slow reactions, as was the myth that the legislation had no money resolution. Without sanction by the Commons of financial backing, my Bill could never, of course, have become law. So reports about its cost having to be met wholly by local authorities were baseless.
Twenty-five years on, our task is not just to assess the Act's impact and to take stock, but also to address important items on the long, unfinished agenda of unmet need among disabled people. The most pressing duty now is to defend the services that the Act provides. Powerful voices ask for more "flexibility" in applying the Act, by which they mean the right to dilute its provisions. Council leaders of all parties say that the Government's current rationing of resources is turning them into law breakers by forcing them to choose which of their legal duties to fulfil. They complain that they are being made to break one law in order to stay within another.
Many recent studies suggest that councils are finding it more and more difficult to meet their statutory duties to disabled people. For example, as the number of people over the age of 75 in need of the home help service increases, the more the service declines in both cases and hours. The Act's benefits clearly are not reaching many disabled people in the way intended by Parliament; and there is intense concern among them about the absence of any clear commitment from the Government to return to the Act's original purposes.
Why should disabled people so often now have to resort to the courts for the provision of services which Parliament plainly intended them to have as of right? Why do Ministers allow some local councils to play cat and mouse with them by deferring assessments of need, thus delaying the provision of services even where urgent help is demonstrably necessary?
Today, even when it is clear that disabled people could succeed in court, their rightful claims are resisted because delay can cut costs. Often that leads to the withdrawal of claims by disabled people for whom the law's delay is much harder to cope with than for most other people. By sleight of hand and fleet of foot, what used to be available to disabled people without means testing increasingly becomes subject to charges and is seen as penalising thrift, especially by elderly disabled people whose adult lives have been spent striving to remain self-supporting in their post-retirement years.
Ministers claim that, while they are tough on the generality of claimants, the weak and vulnerable are fully protected. But just how fully are disabled people protected? The Government say that they are being "singled out" for special help. But disabled people insist that they are being singled out for special hardship. Let the Government try to convince elderly people whose homes are being sold over their heads to pay for residential care in private nursing homes that they are being singled out for special help. Even to suggest that is to add insult to injury for people who feel cruelly victimised by current policy.
As of now disabled people and their organisations complain bitterly that the provisions of section 2 are being trampled on in many parts of this country. The disability organisations are as one in their determination not only to end abuse of the Act, but to see it joined on the statute book by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which I drafted in 1990 and first presented to Parliament in January 1991. Unfair discrimination against them leaves disabled people doubly disabled. That is morally wrong and what is morally wrong ought surely no longer to be legally permissible in Britain.
I am sure most Members of Parliament will agree that much the best way of marking this 25th anniversary year would be to vouchsafe full and enforceable civil rights to disabled people. In continued fellowship with them, let that remain our urgent goal.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Let me start by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and echoing the opening thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for initiating the debate.
Let me also set aside the hon. Gentleman's untypically ungenerous opening remarks. He and I have campaigned together for a number of years for improvements in the lives of people with disabilities. We have rarely been on opposite sides of an argument in these matters and when we have it has usually been over speed or scale rather than the principle of a proposal. That is good because the House is so often at its best when it comes together to promote the welfare of disabled people and to overcome obstacles for them.
The House is also at its best when it does not patronise such people, but recognises that disability can develop in or happen to each and every one of us to a greater or lesser extent—sometimes from birth, sometimes from the aging process and sometimes from an illness, accident or event in our lives—and that each and every person with a disability, however severe, is a potential achiever if we enable him or her to develop latent talents and abilities or remove obstacles from his or her path of progress.
Some people will need much greater levels of care and support than others. For some it will be in-patient care, for others it will be mobility support or aids to help them hold down a full-time job. Whoever, wherever and whatever, our task as a society—in central Government, local government, health, education, leisure, housing and transport authorities and as employers, friends, neighbours and families—is not to help people to forget their disability as that would be impossible, but to overcome it, to manage it and to achieve the highest quality of life despite it.
Government and Parliament have a linchpin role and I am proud to he a supporter of and a member of a Government who have done so much in so many ways to enhance the lives of people with disabilities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) listed the resources. When I look at the calls that I made as a new Back Bencher in a debate on disability that I was fortunate to be able to initiate some years ago, I am impressed by the number on which there has been progress—from special educational needs to support for carers.
Many measures have originated in private Members' Bills and today we acknowledge the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) brought to and through the House 25 years ago. I was impressed to read "Be It Enacted", RADAR's celebration of that anniversary, in which Denny Denly describes the right hon. Gentleman as a "powerful beacon".
I had always thought that on major anniversary celebrations beacons were usually taken to a high place and set on fire. I hope that that will not be the fate of the right hon. Gentleman, but he can at least glow with pride at the progress which came from that Act. It is a pride that he has shared with a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. One might add others too—Fred Evans, Sir Maurice Macmillan, Arthur Latham and the formidable Dame Irene Ward—who were with him in the trenches at that time. Then, as now, there was an all-party coalition working in support of disabled people.
We have been reminded of the occasion when, as RADAR's splendid publication describes, the right hon. Gentleman
first took his ideas to Richard Crossman, the Secretary of State for Social Services, who hit the roof. His response was to ask who Alf was, after a mere five years at Westminster, to instruct him about social priorities. Had such a Bill been needed, said Richard Crossman, he would have put it on the Statute Book himself.
That is confirmed in a letter from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell):
I well remember how Dick Crossman tried to bully you into either changing drastically or dropping the Bill at more than one point.
That just shows that obstacles to legislation are not always on one side of the House.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the achievements that have come from and were built on that Act through innumerable measures—some legislative, culminating in the Disability Discrimination Bill, but many not, such as the development of community care and the partnership that the Government have with so many charitable, representative and research organisations. Behind that progress has been our great health service, with advances in medical science and technology paralleled by strides in health care delivery and co-ordination with agencies such as social services and the independent sector. I will ensure that my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment consider carefully the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) as they—not I—are probably equipped to consider the accounts of the organisation that he mentioned.
Community care has already played a significant part in enabling people to remain in their own home or to come out of institutions and into more homely settings. As years go by, community care's fundamental principles of assessment of need, involvement of users and carers in decision making and openness about eligibility criteria will help to make services responsive and flexible to the needs and wishes of disabled people. That will be strengthened from next April, when each local social services authority should have in place its community care charter.
We have recently issued our development programme for community care, "Building Partnerships for Success", which highlights the need further to develop partnerships with users and carers—not just in decisions affecting them personally but in strategic decisions. That mirrors the work that I so much valued during the introductory years of national community care planning and implementation undertaken by our National Users and Carers Group. I pay the warmest tribute to Peter Swain, the group's chairman, and all his members, who have served as a challenging


and constructive ginger group that has been an invaluable source of wide experience, geographically and over the range of disability.
The Government work with an enormous range of disability organisations. I pay tribute to the people who run them and to the great army of volunteers who support them. Their work as befrienders, informal carers and advocates is valued by us and, more importantly, by the people they support.
It is inevitable that there will always be more that could be done by such organisations if they could afford it. I always understand when an organisation comes to see me or welcomes me to an example of its work, thanks me courteously for the Government's financial support, then gently and eloquently directs my attention to new ideas that just need a little priming of the pump. My hon. Friend hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) referred to constraints. As to the Mencap issue, charging is a discretionary issue. It is entirely up to each social service's elected authority to decide whether to charge and, if so, how much. It also has the discretion completely to exempt or to reduce charges for any category of people that it chooses. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that message to the people at Mencap.
Like those organisations, I have a budget and a shopping list for tomorrow. At least, unlike Alice's White Queen, tomorrow does come for a great many projects. If the bad news is when I have to say no or not yet, the good news is when I travel the country and see the innovation and dedication that we have been able to support. Much of that involves representative groups. I refer in particular to RADAR's independent living unit research and the work that we funded, to produce training packs and courses on the implementation of section 2 of the 1970 Act. SKILL is doing likewise with sections 5 and 6 of the 1986 Act in respect of disabled students and local authority schools and colleges.
The agony of stigma in addition to the disability from which an individual suffers means that work in the areas of epilepsy, incontinence and mental health is particularly important. We are also in the middle of a five-year programme to develop model rehabilitation services for those who suffer brain injury. Had I time, I would list many of the section 64 initiatives that we support, which enables so many voluntary sector organisations to work across a range of disabilities, of which we can be immensely proud.
There are about 6 million people with disabilities. Of those, 4.3 million face locomotion difficulties, 1.7 million have sight problems and 2.6 million have hearing difficulties. Many of those people have more than one disability. It is a substantial population within our nation. We attach high priority to the development of services for them so that they can achieve the maximum degree of independence.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East in congratulating the all-party group on its work and I join the House in acknowledging the work of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. I join all Members—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That—
(1) European Community Documents Nos. 7465/95, relating to financial provision for fisheries enforcement, 7596/95, relating to the common fisheries policy control system, and 8817/95, relating to fisheries log book records, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A; and
(2) at the sitting on Monday 23rd October the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Fisheries not later than one and a half hours after their commencement, and that Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Orders of the Day — Child Support Agency

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

10 pm

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is a wise Member who from time to time assesses the way in which the work that goes through his or her constituency office and the House is composed of individual cases. It is important that the House should examine the implications of what has happened with one of the next steps agencies, which are having a direct and, in some instances, horrifying effect on the lives of my constituents.
I speak of the Child Support Agency. We have seen a fairly classic example this week of what happens when Ministers seek to distance themselves from the implications of their policies. That gives us all the more reason to examine in a comparatively calm atmosphere the continuing saga of the CSA. It has now had long enough to undergo certain changes and to absorb the alterations that the Government felt were necessary.
I am glad to welcome the Minister to what I understand is his first Adjournment debate on the Government Front Bench. I know that he is sympathetic to the work of the CSA and does his best to deal with the myriad claims upon his time that the agency must represent.
The reality is that for the House, the CSA has become a major difficulty. If we analyse the cases with which we deal in a month, we see that those involving the CSA are becoming more numerous. I have carried out an analysis of the cases raised in my constituency since the CSA came into operation. There have been 56 cases. Of those, four women are paying maintenance while six women, one male and one grandparent cannot get any maintenance. There are 30 cases where people are already paying and eight where there are arrears.
Those cold statistics may not sound tremendously impressive with a population of 78,000. I was rather stunned, however, that the director of the agency—who I am glad to say is a civil servant—in giving evidence yesterday to the Select Committee on Social Services was congratulated by the Chairman on the facts that she presented. I found them rather concerning. She said that embittered couples were aiding the benefit fraud drive by reporting each other to the agency, which had become a lightning conductor for officials investigating benefit and VAT fraud, tax evasion and unpaid national insurance. That is certainly the experience of many of us.
Of the 7,610 cases that have been passed on to the agency, 39 per cent. had a "fraudulent element". Miss Chant did not say how large that was. She moved on to justify the cost of the agency by saying that it had taken £1.44 billion back in savings on benefit. From my point of view, the threatening thing that she then went on to say was that 66,000 people had stopped claiming income support. Fine, that may be perfectly justifiable; I am not in any position to judge. But 12,000 single parents are on reduced benefit after refusing to name the father of their children.
Now, I know that, for the present Government, single parents are indeed not only the lowest of the low but probably the pariahs of modern society, but what cost will we have to pay in future for those 12,000 children, who

are not only being removed from what I regard as a very inadequate level of benefit but presumably are being thrust even further into the poverty trap?
I want to raise with the Minister tonight some of the real problems that arise from the CSA, because we just do not know what damage it is doing. That agency is stirring the detritus of relationships and is having a direct and terrible effect on the children of those marriages. Anyone who has gone through a divorce knows that, if one is unlucky, it is an exceedingly bitter and unpleasant experience. The effect that the CSA is having on individuals is really very frightening.
I have taken up a number of cases, but in two of them males have given up quite highly paid jobs because of the CSA and are now unemployed. In theory, of course, one can say that they have made themselves intentionally unemployed, so one cannot expect any kind of sympathy for them. The reality, it would seem from the cases that we have considered in detail, is that the CSA has gone largely for people in salaried jobs, where they can be easily reached: working for the police, the fire service or some large organisation, such as British Rail, where they can be got hold of quickly and where attachments of earnings can be shoved in quite soon.
On the other hand, a large number of people who have come to me, whose husbands or wives have announced that they were self-employed, have been told in effect, "There is really very little that we can do to help you. We don't have investigation facilities ourselves. We have no way of following up the particular details that you've handed over to us. Indeed, we don't even know where the people concerned can be found."
In at least two cases that I know of, the offended spouse handed over details of addresses, of a considerable number of assets, including extra houses—all sorts of large elements that seemed at least to suggest that there was a large income—but they were unable to receive any support for their children. Naturally, that not only leads to a lack of faith in the workings of the CSA but makes it very clear that, so far, it neither has the machinery, the efficiency nor the method of doing anything practical unless people fall into easily defined categories. When they do, good—the agency is happy and is able to take the money back.
It goes further than that. I have cases in which people were receiving maintenance payments through the courts. They had come to an agreement. The agency accepted the monetary terms of the agreement; yet people discovered that, whereas the local court was able to pay the maintenance quite quickly, the agency, because the money went from the court in Crewe to the west midlands, trundled all through the government machinery and then came back to them, frequently making them wait three weeks for payment—a payment that they would normally be able to obtain within three or four days from the court. That cannot be right. It cannot be defensible. Frankly, one wonders whether the Government are using that as a method of making some interest on the goods that are going through their system, because when one raises it with the CSA, one is told, "We're sorry about it. That's the way the machinery goes. That is what is going to happen." If that leaves the family with no money, they are told, "We are sorry about it, but there is nothing we can do."
In one case, in order to feed her family, a woman was forced to ask for a crisis loan. She had what can laughingly be called a bank account, she was given a


crisis loan of £60 and the bank charged her £60 for being overdrawn because the agency had not given her the money. It was not that the money was not available; the agency hung on to it for three weeks. The answer that I received was, "Sorry about that. That's the way the thing is working. We can't do anything about it."
If it is true, as it says in the press—I do not always believe the press—that Miss Chant said yesterday that there were 382,000 outstanding cases and 350,000 mothers on income support from last April who still had not had determinants, the number of cases in my constituency is quite small. But the investigations are extraordinarily leisurely.
People who are already bitterly on edge find the situation impossible. When they ring the agency, they seldom speak to the same person twice. They speak to a nice person who gives his or her name and they start off on the whole story. They feel humiliated because each time they have to give all their details again to someone new, a member of the so-called business team—how this can be described as a business, I do not know—who has to call up the details on the computer and may or may not give the same advice as was given previously. That has happened time and again.
I see that the agency is to offer DNA testing in paternity cases. The savagery that disputation of paternity unleashes is something from which the children involved will probably never recover. It is born out of desperation. It is the worst kind of dispute between divorcing parents, and the agency now seems to be prepared to provide DNA testing—but on a paying basis—if anything goes wrong. That is not the answer and it will not help in any way.
I come now to the effect of the agency's business classes. Someone must sit down and think seriously about arrears. It is nonsensical when people are earning, say, £125 a week to say to them that, because of the time that it has taken to assess the case, they owe the agency thousands of pounds. That happens time and again. Sums of money in the order of £5,000 or £6,000 produce much trauma. Anyone who has had to deal with CSA cases knows that a lot of time is spent calming people down enough for them to be able to give the details of the case. At some point, someone must assess the likelihood of obtaining thousands of pounds in arrears and whether it would not be better, and encourage people to stay at work, to seek to come to a proper agreement with a recognisable sum.
At the moment, we have the worst of all worlds. Many women do not receive proper maintenance payments. They do not understand why this great agency, which is supposed to be so effective at finding the cash, so brilliant at getting the money from the Treasury, is not finding them money, saying, "We are terribly sorry, but your spouse has somehow or other managed to escape the net." They understand that there are still far too many loopholes and far too many difficulties.
Looking through all the cases, I am saddened at the effect that the CSA is having in addition to the effects of divorce. In a sense, the CSA is in danger of becoming an additional hazard, not for the parents, who may or may not be worthy of support and sympathy, but for the children. I begin my complaints about the CSA with the children. They are the people who concern me; they are the people who will always concern me. If we have a

system whereby people are not receiving rapid support in the form of a suitable amount of money, it must be re-examined effectively.
For example, I know one man who is paying half his existing wage to the CSA. In another case, a woman's husband is obviously working full time as a builder but has declared that he is self-employed. He paid £70 only when the bailiffs went in, yet the CSA took £70 for expenses.
We have examined the cases very carefully. They all have one thing in common: being enmeshed in the CSA is not a happy experience. That complaint is not made only by the male of the species who has to pay up; it is frequently made by the female who is left having to cope with a second family.
I believe that the agency was set up in haste and created in chaos. It is now being run by people who are desperately trying to make it work. I do not criticise the civil servants involved, although I feel that the system—split working and the employment of low-paid civil servants and many part-time workers—contributes to the way in which the CSA is regarded. I must point out to the Government, however, that the actions of the CSA have led to a number of suicides.
It is no use saying that the sort of people who commit suicide probably have other problems. I understand that, but I am dealing with an increasing number of people who show clear signs of what is described in lay terms as mental breakdown because of the impact of what is happening in their lives. I do know a bit about this. I think that the House had better sit back and consider whether we are actually doing a good job.
I believe that the only way in which to right the position is to destroy the agency and start again. That is not a fashionable view. Opposition Members think, as they always do in all contexts, that if the odd sticking plaster is put on the Toy system it will work, but that is not my experience, and it is certainly not my understanding in this instance.
The Minister is both compassionate and sensible. He may find when he looks closely at his responsibilities for the agency that he is asking too much of the people who are trying to make a wholly inadequate system work. He is certainly asking too much of the individuals who are caught in it; they are under such pressure that the damage is too great to be justified by the amount of money that it is bringing in. The Minister will also find that the system is rather like the Tar Baby: anyone who comes near it gets stuck. I hope that he will move quite fast.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for raising this important matter, and for giving the House the opportunity to reflect on the performance of the Child Support Agency. The debate takes place in the aftermath of major legislative changes enshrined in the Child Support Act 1995 and the April 1995 child support regulations.
The changes were designed to remedy serious defects in the child support system, and to build on the early but unsatisfactory experience of the workings of the Child Support Agency. They sought to ensure that the agency fulfilled much more effectively the important objectives


that Parliament laid down for it. It did so against some clear and unchallenged principles, which I believe continue to command widespread support across the House and among our constituents.
The first of those principles is that the CSA must hold the ring between father, mother and taxpayer. Parents should meet the cost of their own children wherever they can; it is wrong to rely on the taxpayer as the first resort when a child's own parents can afford to pay in whole or in part. Taxpayers are often themselves bringing up their own children on relatively low incomes. Secondly, the child support system should produce fair and consistent results, and allow for regular reviews to reflect changing circumstances. Thirdly, incentives for both parents to work should be maintained and dependence on benefit reduced by the establishment of realistic and fair levels of maintenance and regular payments. That is the theory of the system set up by Parliament in 1993, but the practice, as we now know, has not always honoured those objectives.
However, significant reforms have now been introduced. Either they are already in operation, or they will be as soon as we can practically bring them into force. They are largely the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and my predecessor as Minister responsible for child support, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). They resulted from an extensive and thorough exercise in consultation and the results were widely welcomed during the passage of the Bill, which I viewed at first hand as the-Government Whip responsible for its safe transit through Committee. The Government drew particularly on the helpful comments and reports of the Select Committee on Social Security.
I want to reassure the hon. Lady on both her central points—the efficacy of the current system and its sustainability. I do so against the background of four key changes that have been introduced. First, we have a new 30 per cent. rule. That will mean that no absent parent will face paying more than 30 per cent. of their net income in current maintenance payments. In other words, after paying tax and national insurance and 50 per cent. of any pension contribution, they will keep 70 per cent. of their remaining income.
That was the most important reform. It injected a key fairness into the system which we had always intended and which was not previously present in a number of cases. Even absent parents whose payments are in arrears will normally pay no more than an additional 3 per cent.
Secondly, we have introduced a degree of flexibility into the formula. I will return to that later. Thirdly, although there can never be a "clean break" where children are concerned, the Government have recognised that a "clean-break" capital or property settlement may have resulted in a lower award of child maintenance by the courts before the introduction of the child support scheme. That was not always properly reflected in the child support assessment, so we have introduced regulations to make a broad-brush allowance for those property and capital settlements.
We have also recognised high travel-to-work costs. There is a case for an additional allowance for the minority who travel long distances and who therefore have genuinely high travel-to-work expenses.
The formula is clearly successful in the majority of cases, as demonstrated by the comparatively low take-up of the travel-to-work and "clean break" provision in April.

It provides the best means of establishing a fair and consistent maintenance liability that takes account of individual circumstances. Experience has shown, however, that a small proportion of cases were not being fairly dealt with by the formula. That is why we shall introduce an appeal system that will allow some discretion to "depart" from the basic formula in special circumstances. We shall allow flexibility where fairness demands it.
Once parliamentary approval has been obtained, that change will be piloted for three months from next April. Subject to the results of the pilot, I anticipate the full scheme will be introduced towards the end of 1996. By doing that, we have addressed one of the biggest criticisms of the child support system and in doing so we have gone beyond the changes suggested by the Select Committee on Social Security in its last report.
I turn next to the work and administration of the agency itself, which were raised by the hon. Lady. I accept that the agency's performance remains a source of concern for many hon. Members. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am aware of and share many of the general concerns that have been expressed.
Two factors are crucial to the future of child support. The operation of the scheme must be further improved, and we need to secure a general acceptance of the Child Support Agency's work. Those absent parent groups which campaigned so loudly against the child support scheme can no longer claim legitimate grievance. It is time for the small minority of outside groups that oppose the agency to accept that times have changed. I hope that all hon. Members will acknowledge and reinforce the message that absent parents have a responsibility to support their children where they can afford to do so.
I reassure the hon. Lady that there have been tangible improvements in the performance of the Child Support Agency, as they Select Committee on Social Security recognised last night. In 1994–95 the agency collected or arranged more than £187 million in maintenance. The £76 million collected was almost six times the total of the previous year. Maintenance arranged or collected for this year already totals more than £117 million. The agency is therefore on track for this year's target of £300 million.
The agency's increased emphasis on maintenance collection entails a strong commitment to enforcement action where maintenance is not paid—a further point raised by the hon. Lady. Improvements in payments of maintenance to parents with care are clear. Between April and August this year—the first five months alone—the agency collection service paid out £20 million. That was almost as much as in the whole of the previous year. Accuracy, which was formerly woefully inadequate, is improving significantly.
I commend the agency's memorandum to the Select Committee of the House. That details the agency's achievements in a number of areas. I hope that all hon. Members will be impressed, as I was, by the replies given by the chief executive in her evidence to the Select Committee yesterday and by her commitment to achieving further improvements.
I appreciate the concern about the apparent complexity of the system. A great deal of information is required to assess child maintenance. I acknowledge that simplification of the system is a key to improving the process. Progress has been made to resolve the difficulties experienced in the treatment of housing costs and wages.


If the agency can continue to simplify and streamline its procedures, and can get it right, the way forward will be easier.
I know that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security about self-employed absent parents, and she raised the issue again this evening. She is quite right to express concern. As I said, where they can afford to do so, all absent parents should contribute to the upkeep of their children. It is true that the agency has experienced a number of problems in collecting maintenance from self-employed absent parents. This is not a new problem; the courts experienced similar difficulties. Mostly, it results from the difficulty some self-employed parents have in providing accounts. However, some absent parents have sought to exploit this difficulty in a bid to sidestep their legitimate responsibilities towards their children. I am pleased to be able to say that we have made important changes designed specifically to address such problems.
The Child Support Act 1995 introduced two new provisions. First, it bestowed a new power that will allow the agency to have liability orders entered in the county court register of debt judgements. The threat of such an entry will be an incentive to secure the absent parent's compliance, especially in the case of the self-employed as they generally rely on credit for their business.
Secondly, the agency can now issue special interim maintenance assessments. This measure is designed to facilitate the assessment and collection of maintenance. The special assessments will ensure that parents with care receive a contribution towards maintenance from the earliest possible date. In turn, this will reduce any build-up of initial arrears. Payments should come quicker and easier.
The hon. Lady implied that the old child maintenance arrangements worked better, that the old system delivered maintenance where the new system does not. The reality was somewhat different. The old system failed the parent with care and children. Child maintenance liability was put well down the list of an absent parent's commitments. Maintenance not paid would become maintenance never paid.
We have introduced a new method of enforcement: the deduction from earnings order under which maintenance can be deducted from wages by the employer at source. If the absent parent is self-employed, or a deduction from earnings order is ineffective, the agency can go to the magistrates court for a liability order. Once an order has been obtained, the agency can distrain goods up to the value of the order. The agency can seek a charging order to enable maintenance to be recovered. However, just as these measures were often ineffective under the old system, so they are not enough under the new—hence the need for the two provisions that I have outlined.
The hon. Lady suggested that the old system was better able to secure maintenance payments from absent parents. If this seemed so, it was in part due to the lower levels of

expectation and inadequate levels of maintenance. This increased the burden on the general taxpayer by placing further demands on social security expenditure.
The child support scheme has rightly done two things. It has raised the legitimate expectations of the parent with care and it has highlighted the absent parent's financial responsibility towards their children. The current system is also more responsive to changes in the circumstance of either party. Maintenance assessments can now be reviewed without the need to return to court. That removes an important obstacle to securing fair and realistic maintenance assessments.
The Government have listened and have acted. We have made necessary adjustments to the system without risking a return to the old, open-ended discretionary system. Critics of the new system forget too easily the problems of the old one. The old system was fundamentally inconsistent and by no means fair to the parent with care and their children. Average maintenance payments awarded by courts were lower than those established by the Child Support Agency.
In 1993, before the Child Support Agency was established, the average amount of maintenance being received by the one in three lone parents who received any maintenance was approximately £23. This compares with an average of around £40 per week under the new arrangements. These figures also underline the inevitable extra burden that is rightly being borne by absent parents.
I once again thank the hon. Lady for the opportunity to consider the changes in hand to improve our child maintenance system. The current system has experienced significant problems. Recent changes address the functioning and the fairness of the system. Not all the changes are yet in place. In certain cases, it will take time for the improvements to feed through. However, these improvements are exactly those necessary to help the kinds of cases raised with me and my predecessor by the hon. Lady.
I speak with qualified optimism. In the short time in which I have been the responsible Minister, I have come to appreciate the real and continuing efforts of the agency's staff to improve its performance. I have now visited all six Child Support Agency centres and several local field offices and met the staff who run the system. I have been impressed by their determination and drive to succeed in the face of disruptive and sustained efforts by a small number of opponents.
There are tough times ahead for the agency while it seeks to win the trust and confidence of clients who have experienced unacceptable mistakes and delays and to implement further legislative changes, but the CSA has made real, recognisable progress. Its introduction of the April changes was particularly commendable, but further improvements in speed and accuracy are required. The CSA needs to offer its clients the standards of service that they rightly expect. Much still remains to be done to consolidate achievements to date and to continue the lengthy transition to efficient and effective operations.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.